2015-2023 Housing Element - California Department of ... California law the housing element must...

City of Manteca2015-2023 Housing Element

Adopted January 19, 2016

Ionume

This page is intentionally left blank.

Ionume

City of Manteca

Housing Element 2015-2023

ADOPTED

JANUARY 19, 2016

Part 1: Policy Document

Ionume


Manteca General Plan Housing Element

Ionume

Policy Document – Adopted Housing Element – January 19, 2016 1-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS: POLICY DOCUMENT

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS .................................................................................. 1-1

MANTECA’S HOUSING GOALS .................................................................................................................................... 1-2

I. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ............................................................................................................................................ 1-3

II. MIXED-USE, INFILL, AND DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 1-7

III. NEW DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 1-8

IV. MAINTAINING AND PRESERVING EXISTING HOUSING ............................................................................. 1-12

V. HOUSING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS ........................................................................................................................... 1-14

VI. PROMOTING FAIR HOUSING PRACTICES ..................................................................................................... 1-16

VII. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 1-18

VIII. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 1-19

QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................................... 1-21

-


1-ii Policy Document – Adopted Housing Element – January 19, 2016


-


Policy Document – Adopted Housing Element – January 19, 2016 1-1

INTRODUCTION

The City of Manteca faces several new and ongoing challenges during this Housing Element update, including

high rates of unemployment, the loss of the Redevelopment Agency, and limited funding for affordable housing.

While the housing market has grown increasingly affordable as a result of the bursting ―housing bubble,‖ there is

still an ongoing need to create long-term, affordable housing to ensure a sustainable supply of housing that meets

the needs of all income groups.

GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS

Under California law the housing element must include the community's goals, policies, quantified objectives, and

housing programs for the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.

This Housing Element includes eight goal statements. Under each goal statement the element sets out policies that

amplify the goal. Implementation programs are listed at the end of the corresponding group of policies and

describe briefly the proposed action, the City agencies or departments with primary responsibility for carrying out

the program, the funding source, and the time frame for accomplishing the program. Several of the

implementation programs also identify quantified objectives.

The following definitions describe the nature of the statements of goals, policies, implementation programs, and

quantified objectives as they are used in the Housing Element Policy Document:

Goal: Ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable.

Policy: Specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment.

Implementation Program: An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out policy. Implementation

programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and an estimated time frame for its

accomplishment. The time frame indicates the fiscal year in which the activity is scheduled to be completed.

These time frames are general guidelines and may be adjusted based on City staffing and budgetary

considerations.

Quantified Objective: The number of housing units that the City expects to be constructed, conserved, or

rehabilitated, or the number of households the City expects will be assisted through Housing Element programs

based on general market conditions during the time frame of the Housing Element.

Housing element law recognizes that in developing housing policy and programs, identified housing needs may

exceed available resources and the community's ability to satisfy these needs. The quantified objectives of the

housing element, therefore, need not be identical to the identified housing need, but should establish the

maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved, or households assisted

over a five-year time frame.

In this policy document, the term ―affordable housing‖ refers to housing that is affordable to all lower-income

households, including low-income, very low-income, and extremely low-income households.

-


1-2 Policy Document – Adopted Housing Element – January 19, 2016

MANTECA’S HOUSING GOALS

THIS HOUSING ELEMENT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING EIGHT GOAL STATEMENTS THAT PROVIDE THE

VISION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING IN MANTECA:

1. To promote the development of affordable housing in the city of Manteca.

2. To promote mixed-use, infill, and downtown development in the city of Manteca.

3. To provide a range of housing types, densities, and designs, and meet existing and projected housing

needs for all economic segments of the community.

4. To encourage the maintenance and continued improvement of the existing housing stock and

residential neighborhoods.

5. To provide adequate housing opportunities for persons with special needs, including seniors, persons

with disabilities, single parents, large families, persons lacking permanent shelter, and residents with

extremely low incomes.

6. To promote equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone in the

community regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin,

ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability.

7. To encourage energy efficient residential and neighborhood designs that reduce total housing costs by

lowering ongoing operation and maintenance costs.

8. To ensure that Housing Element programs are implemented on a timely basis and the progress of each

program is monitored and evaluated annually.

-



Goals, Policies, and Programs

I. AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Goal H-1 To promote the development of affordable housing in

the city of Manteca.

Policies

Policy H-P-1 The City shall give highest priority for permit processing

to affordable housing projects.

Policy H-P-2 The City shall grant residential density bonuses consistent

with State law for projects that reserve units for low-

and/or moderate-income households.

Policy H-P-3 The City shall establish an annual goal for affordable

housing in the allocation process established under the

Growth Management Ordinance.

Policy H-P-4 The City shall encourage homeownership in new housing

constructed for low- and moderate-income households.

Policy H-P-5 The City shall continue to provide support and financial

assistance to first-time homebuyers.

Policy H-P-6 The City shall strive to ensure that affordable units are not

concentrated in particular areas of the city and are

distributed in suitable locations throughout the city that are

close to retail services, parks, schools, public facilities,

public transit, and other amenities.

Policy H-P-7 The City shall require below market rate affordable

residential units in development areas to be similar to the

market rate units in exterior style and materials.

Policy H-P-8 The City shall encourage the use of appropriately located

surplus public property for the construction of housing

affordable to low- and very low-income households.

Policy H-P-9 The City shall use its powers as appropriate to acquire and

assemble sites to facilitate development of lower-income

-



housing projects at reduced costs, while minimizing

displacement of existing residents.

Policy H-P-10 The City shall support the continued use of rental

assistance opportunities, including HUD Housing Choice

Vouchers by Manteca residents.

Policy H-P-11 The City shall use available State and Federal funding

assistance that is appropriate to Manteca’s needs, to

develop affordable housing. Appropriate programs may

include, but are not limited to, Community Development

Block Grant Program (CDBG), Home Investment

Partnership Program (HOME), Multi-family Housing

Program (MHP), and other programs aimed at providing

housing affordable to low- and very low-income

households.

Policy H-P-12 The City shall consider using Community Development

Block Grant (CDBG) funds to subsidize on- and off-site

infrastructure improvements for lower-income housing

projects.

Policy H-P-13 The City shall seek and apply appropriate financing

techniques, such as mortgage revenue bonds or other

mortgage-backed securities, to develop affordable housing.

Policy H-P-14 The City shall reduce fees as part of an incentive package

to create additional affordable housing.

Implementation Programs

Program H-I-1 FEE WAIVERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

In special circumstances the City may waive certain City

fees or provide other incentives for housing projects

affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low- and

moderate-income households. Where the City provides a

funding program, waives fees, or provides other financial

incentives, the City and developer shall enter into a

development agreement defining the incentive and the

obligation of the developer to provide housing affordable

to low-, very low-, or extremely low-income households.

The agreement shall provide for maintaining the

affordability of the benefiting dwellings over time.

NEW AFFORDABLE

HOUSING CONSTRUCTION

Magnolia Court, an affordable

senior housing development by

the Affirmed Housing Group,

was built on Grant Avenue near

Frances Street in Manteca.

Magnolia Court provides 52 units

of affordable housing to low-

income seniors. The project was

funded using a combination of

Low Income Housing Tax Credits,

a grant, and a loan from the

Redevelopment Agency, and

Proposition 1C Infill Infrastructure

grant funds.

-



The criteria for granting a fee waiver shall include, but is

not limited to, availability of other funding contributions

from charitable or non-profit organizations, the household

size, special needs considerations (e.g., large households,

elderly persons with disabilities), and the level of income

for the prospective tenants or owners of the unit. Priority

will be given to housing development that is co-sponsored

with, or otherwise receives matching funding from another

agency (State or Federal) or non-profit organization. The

decision to waive or modify fees will be made on a case-

by-case basis.

Responsibility: City Council, Community

Development Department

Time Frame: Ongoing as opportunities are

available

Funding: General Fund (Staff Time)

Quantified Objective: 50 moderate-, 50 low-, 50

very low-, and 25 extremely

low-income units

Program H-I-2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE AND

POINT RATING SYSTEM

The City shall modify the sewer allocation system (i.e.,

Growth Management Program) to clarify that all

affordable units are exempt, not just affordable units in

developments that include 75 percent of the units as

affordable. The City shall also expand the definition of

infill developments to exempt infill projects up to the

maximum density allowed by zoning. Additionally, the

City shall modify the point rating system to award points

for affordable rental projects not only for very low-income

households, but also low- and extremely low-income

households.

Responsibility: Community Development

Department, City Council

Time Frame: FY 2015/16


-



Program H-I-3 PURSUE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING

The City shall pursue appropriate State and Federal

funding sources to support the efforts of non-profit and

for-profit developers to meet new construction and

rehabilitation needs of lower- and moderate-income

households. The City shall also specifically target funding

to address the needs of extremely low-income households.

The City shall periodically update and review available

housing programs to identify appropriate funding sources

to meet Manteca’s housing needs.


Time Frame: Review funding opportunities

annually


Quantified Objective: 50 low-, 50 very low-, and 25

extremely low-income units

Program H-I-4 LAND ASSEMBLY

The City shall continue to use its powers to assemble land

that can be used as an incentive to facilitate development

of lower-income housing projects at reduced costs. When

assembling land, the City shall give preference to sites

located close to amenities such as transit, schools, parks,

grocery stores, and other services.



Time Frame: Ongoing, as the opportunity

arises


INNOVATIVE HOUSING:

TOWNHOUSES/ROWHOUSES

These units are typically

developed in clusters of two to

ten units, effectively designed to

densities of about 12 to 18 units

per acre. The units may have a

private green area and share a

common open space. Since this

housing type can be built on a

relatively small site, it is an

effective means for developing

infill sites.

-



Program H-I-5 PRIORITY SEWER AND WATER FOR

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The Growth Management Ordinance already provides an

exemption for sewer allocations for affordable housing;

however, the City shall adopt policies and procedures to

provide priority water service for developments that

include lower income housing units, consistent with State

law (Government Code Section 65589.7).

\



Time Frame: December 2016


II. MIXED-USE, INFILL, AND DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT

Goal H-2 To promote mixed-use, infill, and downtown

development in the city of Manteca.

Policies

Policy H-P-15 The City shall provide incentives and other inducements as

may be available to encourage the development of infill

parcels for residential use in mixed-use developments. The

City shall consider the modification of setbacks, height

limitations, coverage ratios, parking requirements, and

other development regulations to facilitate and encourage

the use of infill sites for residential and commercial mixed-

use, or multi-family residential use.

Policy H-P-16 The City shall encourage mixed use development

opportunities within appropriate zoning designations in the

downtown.

Policy H-P-17 The City shall encourage the construction of second units.

INNOVATIVE HOUSING: ADAPTIVE REUSE

Old commercial and industrial

buildings that can no longer

serve their original purpose can

be adapted to accommodate

housing. Adaptive reuse projects

have involved old school

buildings, train stations, hospitals,

and other public buildings; inns

and hotels; and warehouses,

factories, and other industrial

buildings. These buildings are

converted into apartments,

condominiums, co-housing

projects, and live-work spaces.

-




Program H-I-6 SECOND UNITS

The City shall promote the development of second unit

dwellings by posting information on the City’s website

regarding permitting requirements, changes in State law,

prototype plan sets, internet resources, ―how to‖ manuals,

and/or benefits of second unit dwellings to property

owners and the community. The City shall review its

development impact fee structure to assess whether fees

for second units are appropriate and not a hindrance to the

development of second units.


Department

Time Frame: FY 2015/2016; Ongoing


Quantified Objective: 75 second units (moderate-

income)

III. NEW DEVELOPMENT

Goal H-3

To provide a range of housing types, densities, and

designs, and meet existing and projected housing

needs for all economic segments of the community.

Policies

Policy H-P-18 The City shall maintain an adequate supply of land in

appropriate land use designations and zoning categories to

achieve a mix of single-family and multi-family

development that will provide adequate housing

opportunities for households of all income levels and will

accommodate the housing needs established in the

Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

Policy H-P-19 The City shall regulate the number of housing units

approved each year according to a growth management

system that reflects the availability of infrastructure, the

City’s ability to provide public services, housing needs,

and employment growth.

-



Policy H-P-20 To ensure compliance with State housing law, the City

shall not downzone land from High Density Residential

(HDR) or Medium Density Residential (MDR) if it would

result in the City not having sufficient available sites to

meet the RHNA consistent with State law (i.e., no-net-

loss).

Policy H-P-21 The City shall seek the annexation of lands within the

City’s adopted Sphere of Influence and identified 10- and

20-year Planning Horizons at a rate that ensures an

adequate supply of appropriately zoned residential land.

Policy H-P-22 The City shall encourage higher densities near the ACE

Train Station, Downtown Intermodal Station, and other

existing and future public transportation opportunities.

Policy H-P-23 The City shall seek to improve the efficiency of housing

production and marketing for rental, new, and resale

housing by providing information to the public and

developers on approved residential projects and vacant

land supply.

Policy H-P-24 The City shall avoid policies, regulations, and procedures

that add unnecessarily to the costs of producing housing

while assuring the attainment of other City objectives.

Policy H-P-25 The City will consider new housing construction methods

and dwelling unit types that encourage affordability

through innovative design such as small lot subdivisions

and second units.

Policy H-P-26 The City shall ensure that its current development impact

fee structure does not unnecessarily constrain production

of infill development, second units, and multi-family

housing.

Policy H-P-27 The City shall promote the expeditious processing and

approval of residential projects that meet General Plan

policies and City regulatory requirements.

Policy H-P-28 The City shall ensure that housing developments pay their

own way in terms of financing public facilities and

services.

INNOVATIVE HOUSING: COTTAGE CLUSTER

HOUSING

Cottage clusters typically

feature between four and

twelve units, often less than 1,000

square feet, but rarely larger

than 1,200 square feet. The units

are built around common open

space, with minimal private

yards. Most have parking in

separate areas or structures near

the entrance, in order to

minimize space taken up by

driveways.

INNOVATIVE HOUSING:

LIVE-WORK LOFTS

Live-work units offer dual use

space in a contemporary

setting. Working at home is

linked to affordability of housing

because a home office may

reduce the need to rent office

space elsewhere. It can also

save considerable time and

expense associated with

commuting, and reduce

pollution. This mixed-use

concept often helps to revitalize

downtown areas because it can

support rehabilitation of under-

utilized commercial and

industrial areas and can play a

major role in the incubation of

new businesses that provide

community-based jobs.

-



Policy H-P-29 The City shall work with the Manteca Unified School

District to ensure the availability of adequate school sites

to provide for the construction of new schools for the

children of projected households in Manteca.

Policy H-P-30 The City shall ensure that amenities, transit, and other

essential services are provided at appropriate distances

from residential development to serve the surrounding

neighborhoods without the use of automobiles.

Policy H-P-31 The City shall ensure that street and subdivision layout

encourages connectivity and livable neighborhoods.


Program H-I-7 VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED

RESIDENTIAL PARCEL INVENTORY

The City shall continue to maintain and make available to

the public an inventory of vacant and underutilized

residentially-zoned parcels. The City shall make the

system user-friendly and aim to update the list on a

monthly basis. The system shall be used to facilitate the

assembly of infill parcels.


Time Frame: Monthly


Program H-I-8 APPROVED PROJECT INVENTORY

The City shall continue to maintain and make available to

the public a list of approved residential projects (i.e.,

Residential Activity Report) and a list of the housing built

by type and affordability categories. The City shall make

the system user-friendly and aim to update the lists on a

monthly basis.


Time Frame: Monthly


SITES INVENTORY

The residential sites inventory,

located in Appendix A of the

Housing Element Background

Report, shows the vacant and

underutilized sites within existing

city limits designated for

medium- and high-density

residential and mixed-use

development.

•

-

--A-1..._ ..... ~



Program H-I-9 ANNEXATION

While the City currently (2015) has an adequate supply of

residentially-zoned land, the City shall periodically review

the supply of land zoned for residential use and shall

initiate an annexation program when the available supply

of land is less than 120 percent of the projected eight-year

housing need.



Time Frame: Ongoing


Program H-I-10 PERMIT PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT

FEE SCHEDULE

The City shall evaluate the effect of the existing and

proposed rates on the cost of new housing when revising

the City’s permit processing and development fee

structure.

Responsibility: Public Works Department,

Community Development

Department, and Finance

Department

Time Frame: Every five years (2015, 2020)


Program H-I-11 REVIEW MULTIFAMILY PARKING

STANDARDS

The City shall review parking standards for multifamily

uses and consider modifying the requirements to be based

on the number of bedrooms to reduce parking

requirements for smaller units (e.g., studio and one-

bedroom units).


Department

Time Frame: 2017


-



IV. MAINTAINING AND PRESERVING EXISTING

HOUSING

Goal H-4

To encourage the maintenance and continued

improvement of the existing housing stock and

residential neighborhoods.

Policies

Policy H-P-32 The City shall support the revitalization of older

neighborhoods by keeping streets, sidewalks, and other

municipal systems in good repair and providing

neighborhood improvements, such as street lighting,

landscaping, and recreation amenities that contribute to

stable, quality neighborhoods.

Policy H-P-33 The City shall strive to improve code enforcement efforts.

Policy H-P-34 The City shall require the abatement of unsafe structures,

giving property owners ample opportunities to correct

deficiencies.

Policy H-P-35 The City shall promote the continued upkeep of existing

mobilehome parks.

Policy H-P-36 The City shall cooperate with the San Joaquin County

Housing Authority to promote the maintenance of housing

affordable to low- and moderate-income households.

Policy H-P-37 The City shall encourage private reinvestment in older

residential neighborhoods and private rehabilitation of

housing.

Policy H-P-38 The City shall maintain an adequate level of public

services, infrastructure, and park and recreational facilities

to meet the needs of existing and projected development,

within the fiscal capacity of the City.

Policy H-P-39 The City shall adapt public services, such as neighborhood

policing services to enhance the stability and value of

existing neighborhoods.

Policy H-P-40 The City shall give priority to housing located in infill

areas in City housing rehabilitation programs.

-



Policy H-P-41 The City shall use State and Federal funding assistance to

rehabilitate housing. Housing rehabilitation efforts should

be given high priority in the use of Community

Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.

Policy H-P-42 The City shall support the use of Community Development

Block Grant funds for the upgrading of streets, sidewalks,

and other public improvements in infill areas.


Program H-I-12 CBDG FUNDS FOR AFFORDABLE

HOUSING PRESERVATION

The City shall continue to participate in the San Joaquin

County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)

program and annually seek CDBG funding for City

projects and programs that support the preservation and

maintenance of affordable housing. In the alternative the

City may apply for direct allocation funds under the State

CDBG program. Housing objectives shall be a high

priority in the use of CDBG funds.



Time Frame: Annually

Funding: General Fund (Staff Time);

CDBG

Quantified Objective: 30 low- and 30 very low-

income units

Program H-I-13 CODE ENFORCEMENT The City shall continue to encourage the rehabilitation of

substandard residential properties by homeowners and

landlords, using the Code Enforcement program when

necessary, to improve overall housing quality and

conditions in the city.


Department

Time Frame: Ongoing

Funding: General Fund

-



Program H-I-14 PRESERVE AT-RISK UNITS

The City shall maintain contact with the operators of at-

risk affordable housing (i.e., affordable projects that

could convert to market rate within 10 years) to ensure

the preservation of affordable units. The City shall

provide technical assistance to potential purchasers of

at-risk affordable housing, including non-profits,

developers, and tenants to help preserve affordable

housing in Manteca. Technical assistance could include

connecting at-risk housing project owners with funding

agencies or service providers to extend the affordability

of the housing. In the event a project is determined to be

at-risk of converting to market rate housing, the City shall

ensure the owner has met the tenant noticing requirements

as set forth in California Government Code Sections

65863.10 and 65863.11. The City shall ensure that tenants

are informed of their eligibility to obtain special Housing

Choice Vouchers for tenants of converted HUD properties.


Department


Time Frame: Ongoing

Quantified Objective: 120 lower-income units

V. HOUSING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS

Goal H-5

To provide adequate housing opportunities for persons

with special needs, including seniors, persons with

disabilities, single parents, large families, persons

lacking permanent shelter, and residents with

extremely low incomes.

Policies

Policy H-P-43 The City shall seek to accommodate housing and

emergency shelter for residents with special housing needs

through appropriate zoning standards and permit

processes.

SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING

CASE STUDY: PENSIONE K,

SACRAMENTO, CA

Single-room occupancy (SRO)

units can provide a valuable

form of affordable housing for

lower-income individuals,

seniors, and persons with

disabilities. An SRO unit usually is

small, between 200 to 350

square feet. These units provide

a valuable source of affordable

housing and can serve as an

entry point into the housing

market for formerly homeless

people.

Pensione K provides single-room

occupancy units and one-

bedroom apartments with

individual kitchens and baths,

plus eight artist lofts, and

pedestrian-oriented street level

retail. It provides very low-

income access urban amenities,

including retail, parks, and

transit. The project was financed

using funds provided by the

Sacramento Housing and

Redevelopment Agency and

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.

-



Policy H-P-44 The City shall give special attention in housing programs

to the needs of special groups, including persons with

disabilities, large families, the elderly, and families with

lower incomes.

Policy H-P-45 The City shall strive to address the shelter needs of its

homeless residents by working with service providers.

Policy H-P-46 The City shall assess the special needs of young families

and the elderly for improved and conveniently located

public and private services.

Policy H-P-47 The City shall encourage the development of new housing

units designed for the elderly persons and persons with

disabilities to be in close proximity to public transportation

and community services.

Policy H-P-48 The City shall continue to support the Supportive Services

Centers (SSC) managed by San Joaquin County and the

Family Self-Sufficiency Program operated by the San

Joaquin County Housing Authority.

Policy H-P-49 The City shall consult with the California Department of

Housing and Community Development, the San Joaquin

County Housing Authority, and other agencies and

organizations to develop housing for special needs groups

such as farmworkers, seniors, persons with disabilities, and

homeless persons, as needed within the community.


Program H-I-15 SUPPORT FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS

AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING

The City shall pursue State and Federal funds to support

existing emergency shelters and transitional housing with

maintenance and operation costs.


Department

Time Frame: Pursue funding two times in

planning period, based on

available funding


REASONABLE

ACCOMMODATION

Federal and State fair housing

law says that jurisdictions have

an "affirmative duty to provide

reasonable accommodation in

land use and zoning rules,

policies, practices and

procedures where it may be

necessary to provide individuals

with disabilities equal

opportunity in housing."

Reasonable accommodation

extends beyond exceptions to

development standards, such as

allowing a wheel chair ramp. It

applies to land use rules as well.

For example, if a special needs

housing developer wants to

build a multi-family building for

persons with disabilities in a

commercial zone that does not

allow residential uses, but the

site is a good candidate for the

project because of its proximity

to medical services, the

developer can seek a waiver of

the prohibition against

residential uses.

Fair Housing Reasonable Accommodation:

A Guide to Assist Developers and Providers of Housing for People with

Disabilities in California

~ nul Hulth Ad\ooexy s..vkn , lr,c..

-



FAIR HOUSING

The City of Manteca has a legal

obligation to affirmatively further

fair housing choice. Along with

the cities of Escalon, Lathrop,

Ripon, Stockton, Tracy, and San

Joaquin County, the jurisdictions

are in the process of updating

an Analysis of Impediments to

Fair Housing Choice (AI) that

identifies each jurisdiction’s

major role in contributing to fair

housing choice in the county.

One of the ways that Manteca

can most effectively further fair

housing choice in the city is

through implementation of the

Housing Element.

Program H-I-16 PUBLICIZING REASONABLE

ACCOMMODATION

The City shall prepare and maintain an up-to-date public

information brochure on reasonable accommodation for

persons with disabilities and provide that information on

the City’s website.


Department

Time Frame: Post on website by 2017


Program H-I-17 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH

DISABILITIES

The City shall support funding applications for County,

State, and Federal funding for the construction and

rehabilitation of supportive housing for persons with

disabilities, including developmental disabilities.


Department

Time Frame: As opportunities become

available

Funding: General Fund

VI. PROMOTING FAIR HOUSING PRACTICES

Goal H-6

To promote equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and

affordable housing for everyone in the community

regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation,

marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status,

source of income, or disability.

Policies

Policy H-P-50 The City shall make information available to the public on

the enforcement activities of the State Fair Employment

and Housing Commission.

Policy H-P-51 The City shall strive to maintain an effective relationship

and communications with the San Joaquin Housing

Authority and San Joaquin County to ensure access to fair

housing services.

-



Policy H-P-52 The City shall prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental

of housing with regard to race, color, national origin,

ancestry, religion, disability, source of income, sex, sexual

orientation, marital status, or familial status.

Policy H-P-53 The City shall support and participate in the fair housing

program of the San Joaquin Fair Housing Association or

initiate a fair housing program of its own.


Program H-I-18 SAN JOAQUIN FAIR HOUSING PROGRAM

The City shall post and distribute information on the

enforcement program of the State Fair Employment and

Housing Commission and the services of the San Joaquin

Fair Housing Association.

The City shall coordinate with the San Joaquin Fair

Housing Association for administration of a fair housing

program. The City shall annually review the activities of

the San Joaquin Fair Housing Association to ensure that it

is meeting the City’s fair housing objectives and to

evaluate its cost effectiveness. The City may establish and

administer its own fair housing program.

The City shall distribute information provided by the San

Joaquin Fair Housing Association (including brochures,

flyers, posters, and similar publications) in public locations

throughout the city, including the Community

Development Department Office, Administration Office,

libraries, and the senior center. In addition, the Community

Development Department shall have such information

available on the City website and distribute it to churches,

developers, non-profit agencies, and others who request it.

Information shall be provided in languages other than

English where appropriate.

Responsibility: City Council, City Manager

Time Frame: Annually


-



VII. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT

Goal H-7

To encourage energy efficient residential and neighborhood

designs that reduce total housing costs by lowering ongoing

operation and maintenance costs.

Policies

Policy H-P-54 The City shall promote the use of energy conservation

features in the design of all new residential structures.

Policy H-P-55 The City shall enforce State requirements, including Title

24 requirements, for energy conservation in new

residential projects and encourage residential developers to

employ additional energy conservation measures with

respect to the following:

Street and driveway design

Lot pattern and configuration

Siting of buildings

Landscaping

Solar access

Policy H-P-56 The City shall encourage residential construction of

durable materials and designs suited to local conditions

that will contribute to reduction of the life-cycle cost of the

dwelling.

Policy H-P-57 The City shall encourage innovative building construction

techniques and materials to reduce initial and ongoing

housing costs and provide superior housing.

Policy H-P-58 The City shall support the use of weatherization programs

for existing residential units.

Policy H-P-59 The City shall encourage land use and circulation

development patterns that facilitate the use of lower-cost

alternative vehicles.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Energy efficiency has direct

application to affordable

housing. The more money spent

on energy, the less there is

available for rent or mortgage

payments. High energy costs

have particularly detrimental

effects on low-income

households that do not have

enough income or cash reserves

to absorb cost increases and

must choose between basic

needs such as shelter, food, and

energy.

In addition to reducing

residential energy costs, which

makes housing more affordable,

there are a number of benefits

to providing energy-conserving

measures in homes. Energy

efficiency ensures better interior

climate control for those

residents that might be inclined

to shut off heating and cooling

systems in order to save money.

It reduces the need for new

power generation plants with

their problems relating to air

quality and climate change. On

a larger scale, energy efficiency

in the home contributes to

sustainability by reducing the

need for materials used for

larger heating and cooling

systems, transmission and

distribution lines, and generating

plants.

-




Program H-I-19 ENERGY EFFICIENCY OPPORTUNITIES

The City shall continue to post and distribute information

on currently available weatherization programs. The City

shall also produce and distribute information regarding

Title 24, green building, durable materials and designs,

innovative building construction techniques and materials,

land use and circulation patterns, water conservation, and

renewable energy opportunities.


Time Frame: Ongoing


Program H-I-20 BUILDING CODES

The City shall ensure that local building codes are

consistent with state mandated or recommended green

building standards.

Responsibility: Building and Safety Division

of Community Development

Time Frame: Ongoing


VIII. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING

Goal H-8

To ensure that Housing Element programs are implemented

on a timely basis and the progress of each program is

monitored and evaluated annually.

Policies

Policy H-P-60 The City shall continually work to improve the day-to-day

tracking of housing-related information and

implementation of Housing Element programs.

-




Program H-I-21 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

REPORTING

The City shall review and report on the implementation of

Housing Element programs to the Department of Housing

and Community Development (HCD) using a format

provided by HCD.


Department

Time Frame: Ongoing


-



QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES

One of the requirements of State law (California Government Code Section 65583[b]) is that the Housing

Element contain quantified objectives for the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of

housing. State law recognizes that the total housing needs identified by a community may exceed available

resources and the community’s ability to satisfy this need. Under these circumstances the quantified objectives

need not be identical to the total housing needs. The City has established a target for the maximum number of

housing units for each income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved based on available

resources (see Table 1).

Table 1 Summary of Quantified Objectives

Program Extremely

Low Very Low Low Mod.

Above Mod. Total

New Construction 50 100 100 125 - 375

Rehabilitation - 30 30 - - 60

Preservation 60 60 - - 120

Total 50 190 190 125 - 555

-

City of Manteca

Housing Element 2015-2023

ADOPTEDJANUARY 19, 2016

Part 2: Background Report


of Mantecausing Elemument

Background Report – Adopted Housing Element – January 19, 2016 2-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS: BACKGROUND REPORT

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

OVERVIEW OF STATE REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2-2 GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT CONSISTENCY .................................................................................................. 2-4 GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT DIFFERENCES ................................................................................................... 2-4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................................................................................... 2-5

I. EXISTING HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 2-5

A. DEMOGRAPHIC AND EMPLOYMENT PROFILE ................................................................................................................ 2-6 1. Demographics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2-6 2. Income and Employment ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-10 3. Population and Employment Projections .................................................................................................................................. 2-14

B. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS AND HOUSING SUPPLY ............................................................................................ 2-15 1. Household Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-15 2. Housing Inventory and Supply .................................................................................................................................................. 2-21 3. Special Housing Needs .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-41

II. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS ..................................................................................................................................... 2-58

A. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION ................................................................................................................. 2-59 B. COMPARISON OF HOUSING UNIT PRODUCTION WITH PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS ................................................... 2-61

1. Remaining Need ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2-65

III. RESOURCE INVENTORY ...................................................................................................................................... 2-65

A. AVAILABILITY OF LAND AND SERVICES ..................................................................................................................... 2-65 1. Residential Sites Inventory ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-66 2. Total Residential Holding Capacity vs. Projected Needs by Housing Type and Income Group ............................................... 2-71 3. Land Available for a Variety of Housing Types ........................................................................................................................ 2-72 4. Adequacy of Public Facilities and Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 2-78

B. INVENTORY OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL HOUSING AND FINANCING PROGRAMS .............................................. 2-79 1. Former Redevelopment Agency and Successor Agency ............................................................................................................ 2-80 2. San Joaquin Housing Authority ................................................................................................................................................ 2-81 3. Local Fair Housing Service Agencies ....................................................................................................................................... 2-81 4. State and Federal Housing Programs ....................................................................................................................................... 2-81 5. Assisted Housing Projects in Manteca ...................................................................................................................................... 2-91 6. Preserving At-Risk Units ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-93

C. ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES .................................................................................................................. 2-96 1. New Residential Energy Standards ........................................................................................................................................... 2-96 2. Subdivision Design for Heating or Cooling Opportunities ....................................................................................................... 2-96 3. Weatherization Activities ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-96

IV. POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................................................ .2-98

A. POTENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS .............................................................................................................. 2-98 1. Land Use Controls: General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning ................................................................................... 2-98 2. Growth Management Program ............................................................................................................................................... 2-101 3. Building Codes and Enforcement ............................................................................................................................................ 2-105 4. Processing and Permit Procedures ......................................................................................................................................... 2-106 5. Development Fees and Other Exactions ................................................................................................................................. 2-111 6. On/Off Site Improvement Requirements .................................................................................................................................. 2-117 7. Open Space and Park Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 2-120 8. Density Bonus ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-120 9. State of California, Article 34 ................................................................................................................................................. 2-123 10. Inclusionary Housing ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-124

-


2-ii Background Report – Adopted Housing Element – January 19, 2016

11. Development, Maintenance, and Improvement of Housing for Persons with Disabilities ..................................................... 2-124

B. POTENTIAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................... 2-125 1. Availability of Financing ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-125 2. Development Costs .................................................................................................................................................................. 2-127

V. EVALUATION .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-130

A. REVIEW OF EXISTING (2010) HOUSING ELEMENT .................................................................................................... 2-130

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................................................... .2-147

PERSONS CONSULTED ................................................................................................................................................... 2-148

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................................ .2-149

APPENDIX A: RESIDENTIAL LAND INVENTORY ............................................................................................................. 2-150 APPENDIX B: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................................... 2-159 APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................................. 2-165

-



Background Report – Adopted Housing Element – January 19, 2016 2-iii

List of Tables

Table 1 Historical Population Change .................................................................................................................................. 2-7 Table 2 Population Change ................................................................................................................................................... 2-8 Table 3 Age Characteristics .................................................................................................................................................. 2-9 Table 4 Population Breakdown by Race and Ethnicity ...................................................................................................... 2-10 Table 5 Household Income Distribution ............................................................................................................................. 2-12 Table 6 Median Income ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-12 Table 7 Estimated Civilian Employed Population by Occupation ...................................................................................... 2-13 Table 8 Population and Employment Projections ............................................................................................................... 2-15 Table 9 Family and Non-Family Households ..................................................................................................................... 2-16 Table 10 Overcrowding ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-18 Table 11 Household Size by Tenure ................................................................................................................................... 2-19 Table 12 Number of Bedrooms by Tenure ......................................................................................................................... 2-20 Table 13 Average Household Size by Tenure .................................................................................................................... 2-21 Table 14 Housing Stock by Type........................................................................................................................................ 2-22 Table 15 Occupancy/Vacancy ............................................................................................................................................ 2-23 Table 16 Vacant Units by Type .......................................................................................................................................... 2-24 Table 17 Age of Housing Stock & Housing Stock Conditions by Tenure .......................................................................... 2-25 Table 18 Housing Cost Burden by Household Income Classification ................................................................................ 2-31 Table 19 Income Limits based on Household Size ............................................................................................................. 2-33 Table 20 Ability to Pay for Housing based on HUD Income Limits .................................................................................. 2-34 Table 21 HUD Fair Market Rent ........................................................................................................................................ 2-35 Table 22 Affordable Rents and Housing Prices by Income and Occupation ...................................................................... 2-37 Table 23 Home Sale Activity .............................................................................................................................................. 2-39 Table 24 Home Price to Income Comparison ..................................................................................................................... 2-40 Table 25 Average Rental Rates For Apartments and Single-Family Homes ...................................................................... 2-41 Table 26 Senior Populations and Households..................................................................................................................... 2-42 Table 27 Housing Cost Burden by Age and Tenure .......................................................................................................... 2-44 Table 28 Disability Status & Types of Disabilities by Age Group ..................................................................................... 2-46 Table 29 People with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ........................................................................................ 2-47 Table 30 Large Households ................................................................................................................................................ 2-49 Table 31 Single-Parent Households .................................................................................................................................... 2-50 Table 32 Overnight and Emergency Facilities .................................................................................................................... 2-53 Table 33 Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing .................................................................................................... 2-55 Table 34 Emergency and Transitional Shelter Provider Capacities .................................................................................... 2-56 Table 35 Housing Cost Burden of Extremely Low-Income Households ............................................................................ 2-57 Table 36 Regional Housing Needs Allocation by Income .................................................................................................. 2-60 Table 37 Units Approved, Built, and Under Construction .................................................................................................. 2-62 Table 38 Remaining Need Based on Built and Approved Units......................................................................................... 2-65 Table 39 Residential Holding Capacity Compared to RHNA by Income .......................................................................... 2-72 Table 40 Financial Resources for Housing ......................................................................................................................... 2-87 Table 41 Rental Projects Receiving Government Assistance ............................................................................................. 2-92 Table 42 General Plan Land Use Designations Allowing Residential Uses ....................................................................... 2-99 Table 43 Setback, Lot Coverage, and Height Requirements Zones Allowing Residential Uses ...................................... 2-100 Table 44 Residential Building Permits Issued .................................................................................................................. 2-103 Table 45 Population Projection at 3.9 Percent Annual Growth ........................................................................................ 2-104 Table 46 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses ..................................................................................................... 2-107 Table 47 Timeline for Permit Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 2-110 Table 48 Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type ................................................................................................ 2-111 Table 49 Planning Fees ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-112 Table 50 Development Impact Fees

1 ................................................................................................................................ 2-115

Table 51 San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan Fees ...................................... 2-117

-


2-iv Background Report – Adopted Housing Element – January 19, 2016

Table 52 Required Off-Street Parking Spaces .................................................................................................................. 2-119 Table 53 Statewide Parking Standards for Affordable Housing ....................................................................................... 2-122 Table 54 Estimated Single-Family Housing Development Costs ..................................................................................... 2-128 Table A-1 Vacant Residential Sites Inventory .................................................................................................................. 2-150 Table A-2 Underutilized Residential and Mixed use Sites with Short-term Development Potential ............................... 2-155 Table A-3 Underutilized Residential and Mixed Use Sites with Long-Term Development Potential ............................. 2-158

List of Figures

Figure 1 Personal income per capita ................................................................................................................................... 2-11

Figure 2 Unemployment Rate ............................................................................................................................................. 2-14

Figure 3 Owner-occupied and Renter-occupied Housing Units ......................................................................................... 2-17

Figure 4 Median Home Price ............................................................................................................................................. 2-38

Figure 5 Home Price to Income Comparison ...................................................................................................................... 2-40

Figure A-1 Residential Sites Inventory ............................................................................................................................. 2-153

-



Background Report – Adopted Housing Element – January 19, 2016 2-1

INTRODUCTION State Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65580 (et seq.)) mandates that local

governments must adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all

economic segments of the community. This Housing Element Background Report provides

current (to the end of 2014) information on household characteristics, housing needs, housing

supply, land inventory for new development, housing programs, constraints, and incentives for

new housing development in the city of Manteca. It also evaluates progress made since the last

Housing Element was adopted in 2010. Where available, population and housing projections are

provided as well.

The Background Report of the Housing Element identifies the nature and extent of the city’s

housing needs, which in turn provides the basis for the City’s response to those needs in the

Policy Document. The Background Report also presents information on the community’s setting

in order to provide a better understanding of its housing needs.

The City of Manteca last updated its Housing Element in 2010. The Element served a 5½-year

planning period from June 15, 2010, to December 31, 2015. The City previously adopted a 2004

Housing Element before the 2010 document.

The current (2015) Housing Element is a comprehensive update of the 2010 Housing Element.

The 8-year planning period is for January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2023.

When adopted, this Element will become part of the City of Manteca General Plan. The 2003

General Plan includes the following elements:

Land Use

Community Design

Circulation

Economic Development

Public Facilities and Services

Safety

Resource Conservation

Noise

Air Quality

Administration and Implementation

Housing

-


2-2 Background Report – Adopted Housing Element – January 19, 2016

The adoption of this Housing Element may necessitate revisions of some of the other City of

Manteca General Plan Elements to maintain internal consistency with those Elements as

mandated by State law.

Overview of State Requirements

State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of

housing. Each local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term

general plan for its physical development. The housing element is one of the seven mandated

elements of the general plan. State law requires local government plans to address the existing

and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community through their housing

elements. The law acknowledges that in order for the private market to adequately address

housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems

that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. As a result,

housing policy in the state rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans,

local housing elements in particular.

The purpose of the housing element is to identify the community’s housing needs, to state the

community’s goals and objectives with regard to housing production, rehabilitation, and

conservation to meet those needs, and to define the policies and programs that the community

will implement to achieve the stated goals and objectives.

State law requires cities and counties to address the needs of all income groups in their housing

elements. The official definition of these needs is provided by the California Department of

Housing and Community Development (HCD) for each city and county within its geographic

jurisdiction. Beyond these income-based housing needs, the housing element must also address

special needs groups such as persons with disabilities and homeless persons.

As required by State Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583(a)), the assessment

and inventory for this Element includes the following:

Analysis of population and employment trends and projections, and a quantification of

the locality’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. This analysis of

existing and projected needs includes the City of Manteca’s share of the regional housing

need.

Analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment

compared to ability to pay; housing characteristics, including overcrowding; and housing

stock condition.

An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites

having potential for redevelopment; and an analysis of the relationship of zoning, public

facilities, and services to these sites.

The identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a

permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit.

-




Analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,

improvement, or development of housing for all income levels and for persons with

disabilities, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site

improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and

permit procedures. Analysis of local efforts to remove governmental constraints.

Analysis of potential and actual non-governmental constraints upon the maintenance,

improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability

of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction.

Analysis of any special housing needs for the elderly, persons with disabilities, large

families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and

persons in need of emergency shelter.

Analysis of opportunities for residential energy conservation.

Analysis of ―at-risk‖ assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from low-

income housing uses during the next 10 years.

The Housing Element Background Report identifies the nature and extent of the city’s housing

needs, which in turn provides the basis for the City’s response to those needs in the Housing

Element Policy Document. In addition to identifying housing needs, the Background Report also

presents information on the setting in which the needs occur, which provides a better

understanding of the community and facilitates planning for housing.

The following is a summary of the major sections of the Housing Element Background Report:

Section I: Introduction

Section II: Housing Needs Assessment

A. Housing Stock and Demographic Profile

B. Housing Needs

Section III: Resource Inventory

A. Availability of Land and Services

B. Inventory of Local, State, and Federal Housing and Financing Programs

C. Energy Conservation Opportunities

Section IV: Potential Housing Constraints

A. Potential Governmental Constraints

B. Potential Non-Governmental Constraints

-



Section V: Evaluation

A. Housing Accomplishments

B. Review of 2010 Housing Element

The Background Report satisfies State requirements and provides the foundation for the goals,

policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives. The Background Report sections

draw on a broad range of informational sources. Information on population, housing stock, and

economics comes primarily from the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census, the California Department of

Finance (DOF), and City of Manteca records. Information on available sites and services for

housing comes from numerous public agencies. Information on constraints on housing production

and past and current housing efforts in the city of Manteca comes from City staff, other public

agencies, and a number of private sources.

General Plan and Housing Element Consistency

Upon adoption, this Housing Element will become part of the 2003 City of Manteca General

Plan. To maintain internal consistency among the elements of the General Plan, as required by

State Law, the adoption of this Housing Element may necessitate revisions of some of the

elements of the General Plan. The City will maintain this consistency as future General Plan

amendments are processed by evaluating proposed amendments for consistency with all elements

of the General Plan, including the Housing Element. When the City adopts a comprehensive

update to the General Plan, the City will review and update the Housing Element as necessary to

maintain consistency.

General Plan and Housing Element Differences

The housing element is one of seven State-mandated elements that every general plan must

contain. Although the housing element must follow all the requirements of the general plan, the

housing element has several State-mandated requirements that distinguish it from other general

plan elements. Whereas the State allows local government the ability to decide when to update

their general plan, State law sets the schedule for periodic update (eight-year time frame) of the

housing element. Local governments are also required to submit draft and adopted housing

elements to HCD for State law compliance review. This review ensures that the housing element

meets the various State mandates. When the City satisfies these requirements, the State will

―certify‖ that the element is legally adequate. Failing to comply with State law could result in

potentially serious consequences such as reduced access to infrastructure, transportation, and

housing funding and vulnerability to lawsuits.

-




Public Participation

As part of the Housing Element update process, the City implemented the State’s public

participation requirements in Housing Element Law, set forth in Government Code Section

65583(c)(7), that jurisdictions ―…shall make a diligent effort to achieve participation of all

economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element.‖

Community/Stakeholder Workshop

On April 8, 2015, the City of Manteca held a community workshop as part its 2015-2023

Housing Element Update. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an overview of the

Housing Element Update process and solicit input from the public and stakeholders on

housing issues prior to preparing the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element. Following a

presentation that described key issues related to Manteca’s housing needs; attendees

participated in a roundtable discussion about Manteca’s community assets, major housing

issues, and possible solutions to the identified issues. Community members identified a lack

of affordable housing, high building permit fees, constraints associated with water

conservation programs, lack of senior housing, and lack of workforce housing as some of the

issues facing housing in Manteca. Participants brainstormed potential solutions that include

improving code enforcement, pursuing partnerships with faith-based organizations, planning

more mixed-use housing, and pursuing more grants for affordable housing. Participants spent

some time discussing the use of inclusionary housing to address affordability challenges in

Manteca.

Planning Commission and City Council Meetings

On August 25, 2015, the City of Manteca held a study session with the Planning

Commission as part of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update. The purpose of the study

session was to provide an overview of the Housing Element Update process and solicit

feedback from the Commission and public on the Public Review Draft Housing Element

prior to the City Council study session and submitting the Element to HCD.

On September 15, 2015, the City of Manteca held a study session with the City Council to

present the Public Review Draft Housing Element to the Council, solicit feedback, and

provide the public an opportunity to comment on the Draft Element. The City Council gave

direction to City staff to submit the document to HCD for the mandatory review for

compliance with State law.

The complete public participation summary is available in Appendix B. The input received at the

workshop was taken into consideration in the review and update of the Housing Element,

particularly in the consideration of new housing policies and programs. Many of the issues were

addressed by existing programs that the City will continue to implement.

-



I. EXISTING HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT This section begins with a description of housing and demographic characteristics of the city of

Manteca. The section then discusses the existing housing needs of Manteca based on housing and

demographic characteristics, and the housing needs of ―special‖ population groups as defined in

State law. Data for Manteca is presented, wherever possible, alongside data for San Joaquin

County and California for comparison. This facilitates an understanding of the city’s

characteristics by illustrating how the city is similar to, or differs from, the county and state in

various aspects related to demographic, employment, and housing characteristics and needs.

A. Demographic and Employment Profile

The purpose of this section is to establish ―baseline‖ population, employment, and housing

characteristics for the city of Manteca. The main sources of the information in this section are the

2010 City of Manteca Housing Element Background Report, 2000 U.S. Census, 2010 U.S.

Census, American Community Survey, the California Department of Finance (DOF), and the San

Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). Other sources of information include the following:

the California Employment Development Department (EDD); the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD); the California Department of Housing and Community

Development (HCD); and local economic data (such as home sales prices, rents, and wages).

1. Demographics

Population

Table 1 shows the long-term historic population trends for the city of Manteca. Since

incorporating in 1918, Manteca has been growing rapidly. The city experienced its highest

average annual growth rate (AAGR) between 1950 and 1960 when the population grew at an

AAGR of 8.04 percent. The population continued to grow at an average rate between 5 and 6

percent over the following decades (1960 to 1990). The population growth slowed slightly

between 1990 and 2000, and then increased again between 2000 and 2010. As of 2014 the city

has a population of 72,880. It should be noted that the boundaries of incorporated cities are not

constant and population change over time in a given place reflects not only population growth,

but a change in the area of an incorporated city.

Table 2 shows the dynamics of population growth in Manteca versus San Joaquin County and

California. From 2000 to 2010 both the city of Manteca and San Joaquin County grew at a faster

rate than the state average, with 3.14 percent and 2.11 percent AAGR, respectively, versus 0.96

for all of California. While the 2010-2014 AAGR decreased slightly statewide to 0.72 percent,

the rate of growth in both Manteca and San Joaquin County decreased substantially to 2.09

percent and 0.91 percent, respectively. Over the past four years, Manteca’s population has grown

at approximately three times the state average.

-




Table 1 Historical Population Change

Manteca 1920 to 2014

Year Population Change AAGR

1920 1,286 - -

1930 1,614 328 2.30%

1940 1,981 367 2.07%

1950 3,804 1,823 6.74%

1960 8,242 4,438 8.04%

1970 13,845 5,603 5.32%

1980 24,925 11,080 6.06%

1990 40,773 15,848 5.04%

2000 49,258 8,485 1.91%

2010 67,096 17,838 3.14%

2014 72,880 5,784 2.09%

Source: DOF, 1850-2010 Historical US Census Populations of Counties and Incorporated

Cities/Towns in California; Data Package.

-



Table 2 Population Change

Manteca, San Joaquin County, and California 1990 to 2010

Manteca San Joaquin County California

2000 2010 2014 2000 2010 2014 2000 2010 2014

Population 49,258 67,096 72,880 556,229 685,306 710,731 33,873,086 37,253,956 38,340,074

Growth from Previous Period - 17,838 5,784 - 129,077 25,425 - 3,380,870 1,086,118

AAGR from Previous Period - 3.14% 2.09% - 2.11% 0.91% - 0.96% 0.72%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010; California Department of Finance, 2014.

-




Age

Table 3 shows the distribution of Manteca’s population by age in 2000 and 2010. As shown in

the table, the share of persons between 5-14 and 35-44 years of age declined from 2000 to 2010,

while all other age groups remained stable or increased in their share of the overall population.

Manteca’s population distribution was similar to that of San Joaquin County in 2010, although

Manteca had a slightly higher share of persons 45-54. In 2010 the median age in Manteca (33.6)

was slightly higher than that of the county (32.7) and slightly lower than that of the state (35.2).

Table 3 Age Characteristics

Manteca and San Joaquin County 2000 and 2010

Manteca San Joaquin County

2000 2010 2000 2010

Age Group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

0 to 4 3,716 7.50% 5,183 7.72% 44,960 8.00% 54,228 7.91%

5 to 14 9,120 18.50% 10,745 16.01% 100,407 17.80% 110,975 16.19%

15 to 19 4,305 8.70% 5,588 8.33% 47,915 8.50% 58,382 8.52%

20 to 24 2,759 5.60% 4,485 6.68% 37,668 6.70% 48,451 7.07%

25 to 34 6,456 13.10% 8,789 13.10% 75,540 13.40% 90,815 13.25%

35 to 44 8,576 17.40% 9,286 13.84% 86,601 15.40% 90,738 13.24%

45 to 54 6,324 12.80% 9,798 14.60% 68,748 12.20% 91,839 13.40%

55 to 64 3,426 7.00% 6,569 9.79% 41,960 7.40% 68,697 10.02%

65 to 74 2,420 4.90% 3,747 5.58% 30,673 5.40% 38,530 5.62%

75 and

over 2,156 4.40% 2,906 4.33% 29,126 5.20% 32,651 4.76%

TOTAL 49,258 100.00% 67,096 100.00% 563,598 100.00% 685,306 100.00%

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010.

Race and Ethnicity

Table 4 summarizes U.S. Census data related to the race and ethnicity of residents of Manteca,

San Joaquin County, and California in 2010. As shown in the table, White persons made up a

larger share of Manteca’s population (62.4 percent) than in San Joaquin County (51.0 percent)

and California (57.6 percent). Manteca had a lower proportion of Black/African American and

Asian residents as well. Other than the White, Black/African American, and Asian categories,

Manteca, San Joaquin County, and California had very similar racial and ethnic composition.

-



Table 4 Population Breakdown by Race and Ethnicity

Manteca, San Joaquin County, and California 2010

Racial/Ethnic Category


Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

White 41,840 62.4% 349,287 51.0% 21,453,934 57.6%

Black or African American 2,869 4.3% 51,744 7.6% 2,299,072 6.2%

American Indian and Alaska

Native 735 1.1% 7,196 1.1% 362,801 1.0%

Asian 4,780 7.1% 98,472 14.4% 4,861,007 13.0%

Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander 384 0.6% 3,758 0.5% 144,386 0.4%

Other1 16,488 24.6% 174,849 25.5% 8,132,756 21.8%

Hispanic or Latino (of any

race) 25,317 37.7% 266,341 38.9% 14,013,719 37.6%

TOTAL 67,096 100.0% 685,306 100.0% 37,253,956 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.

Notes: 1―Other‖ includes both ―some other race‖ and ―two or more races‖ categories.

2. Income and Employment

Local demand for housing is significantly impacted by income, employment characteristics, and

regional job growth. To effectively address the housing and jobs relationship, an understanding of

local salary and job profiles is needed. This section analyzes personal income, household income,

and employment characteristics for San Joaquin County and the city of Manteca, when available.

Employment data from the California Employment Development Department (EDD) is for the

Stockton Metropolitan Statistical Area, which covers the same geographic boundaries as the

county.

Personal Income

Since the early 1980s San Joaquin County has had a low average per-capita personal income

compared to California and national averages. The personal income gap between the county and

the state has been growing since then. As shown in Figure 1, from 2000 to 2013 San Joaquin

County’s per-capita personal income rose 37.3 percent to $34,755 compared to the State of

California, which rose approximately 45.2 percent to $48,434. The personal income gap between

San Joaquin County and California almost doubled from $8,060 in 2000 to $13,679 in 2013.

-




Figure 1 Personal Income per Capita

San Joaquin County 1990-2012

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2015.

Household Income

Table 5 shows the distribution of households according to their 2010 incomes for Manteca, San

Joaquin County, and California. While 32.9 percent of households in San Joaquin County earned

less than $35,000 in 2010, only 23.6 percent of households in Manteca earned under $35,000.

Manteca’s income distribution is more heavily concentrated in the middle of the income spectrum

than the county and state. Nearly 41 percent of Manteca’s households earned between $50,000

and $99,999, while less than 32 percent of the county’s households and only 30 percent of

households in the state fell within this income range. On the high end of the income spectrum, 21

percent of Manteca households earned more than $100,000 in 2010, compared to 27 percent of

households in the state.

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

United States

California

San Joaquin County

-



Table 5 Household Income Distribution


Income Manteca San Joaquin County California

Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent

Under $15,000 1,493 6.85% 24,406 11.49% 1,335,125 10.77%

$15,000-$24,999 1,739 7.98% 23,315 10.98% 1,204,419 9.72%

$25,000-$34,999 1,912 8.77% 22,026 10.37% 1,133,643 9.15%

$35,000-$49,999 3,265 14.98% 31,106 14.65% 1,579,823 12.75%

$50,000-$74,999 4,927 22.61% 39,682 18.69% 2,183,651 17.62%

$75,000-$99,999 3,903 17.91% 27,779 13.08% 1,552,084 12.52%

$100,000-$149,000 3,020 13.86% 27,355 12.88% 1,835,599 14.81%

$150,000 or more 1,535 7.04% 16,670 7.85% 1,568,003 12.65%

Total Households 21,794 100.00% 212,339 100.00% 12,392,347 100.00%

Source: ACS 3-year, 2008-2010.

Table 6 shows the median household and median family incomes in 2013 for Manteca, San

Joaquin County, and California. Manteca’s median household income ($57,478) was significantly

higher than that of the county ($51,448), and slightly lower than that of California ($59,645).

Median family incomes followed the same pattern, but were slightly higher for the city, county,

and the state.

Table 6 Median Income


Manteca San Joaquin

County California

Median Household Income $57,478 $51,769 $59,645

Median Family Income $66,483 $57,448 $67,746


Employment

Table 7 shows the estimated employment by occupation in Manteca in 2013. Civilian employed

population is counted by where people live. Since many Manteca residents commute to the Bay

Area for work, the information in the table is not an indication of the number of jobs in the city of

Manteca. Of the total 28,420 employed population in 2013, 21.1 percent (5,999 persons) worked

-




in education, health care and social assistance related jobs. Wholesale and retail trade was the

second largest occupation category with 17.5 percent of Manteca residents employed in this

occupation.

Table 7 Estimated Civilian Employed Population by Occupation

(Persons 16 years and Older)

Manteca 2013

Occupation Number of

Persons Percent

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 510 1.79%

Construction 2,550 8.97%

Manufacturing 2,831 9.96%

Wholesale and Retail Trade 4,974 17.50%

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 2,151 7.57%

Information 349 1.23%

Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 1,128 3.97%

Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste

management services 2,891 10.17%

Educational services, and health care and social assistance 5,999 21.11%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food

services 2,543 8.95%

Other services, except public administration 1,053 3.71%

Public administration 1,441 5.07%

Total Civilian Employed Population (16 years and Older) 28,420 100.00%


The Employment Development Department (EDD) estimates the total labor force of cities and

counties in California; however, the EDD does not break down employment by industry at the

city level. Based on EDD estimates, the number of employed persons in Manteca was 24,600 in

2013. Unemployment in Manteca has increased in recent years, following the statewide trend.

Figure 2 shows unemployment rates in Manteca, San Joaquin County, and California from 2000

to 2013. Since 2000, the city’s unemployment rate has been consistently higher than the state

average, but lower than the unemployment rate in the county. Unemployment increased rapidly

between 2006 and 2010; at the same time the housing market decreased. Some of this

unemployment may be related to layoffs in the construction industry as housing starts had nearly

come to a stop in Manteca and throughout much of California. Unemployment rate has started to

decrease since 2010. As of December 2014, 9.0 percent of Manteca residents were unemployed.

-



Figure 2 Unemployment Rate

Manteca, San Joaquin County, California 2000-2013

Source: Employment Development Department (EDD), 2015.

3. Population and Employment Projections

The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) produces projections of population and

employment for the cities in San Joaquin County, including the city of Manteca. SJCOG’s most

recent projections, released in 2009, cover the period from 2006 to2035. Table 8 shows the

Census population in 2010 and the projected population and number of employees for 2010

through 2035.

As shown in the table, Manteca’s population is projected to increase from 67,096 in 2010 to

78,146 in 2015 and 87,471 in 2020. By 2035 the city’s population is projected to be 117,010.

Employment growth in Manteca is projected at a lower rate than population. The number of jobs

is projected to increase from 14,823 jobs in 2010 to 16,527 in 2015 and 17,815 in 2015. With

population projected to grow faster than employment, the Manteca jobs-to-household ratios will

likely decrease, furthering the city’s role as a bedroom community.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Manteca City 6.0% 6.4% 7.7% 7.9% 7.6% 6.8% 6.4% 7.0% 9.0% 13.3% 15.1% 14.7% 13.1% 11.2%

San Joaquin County 7.0% 7.5% 8.9% 9.2% 8.8% 7.9% 7.4% 8.1% 10.4% 15.3% 17.3% 16.8% 15.0% 12.8%

California 4.9% 5.4% 6.7% 6.8% 6.2% 5.4% 4.9% 5.4% 7.2% 11.3% 12.4% 11.8% 10.4% 8.9%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

--+-

--

-




Table 8 Population and Employment Projections

Manteca 2006 to 2035

Year

Population Employment

Persons AAGR Jobs AAGR

2010 67,096 - 14,823 -

2015 78,146 3.10% 16,527 2.20%

2020 87,471 2.28% 17,815 1.51%

2025 97,410 2.18% 19,043 1.34%

2030 107,766 2.04% 20,401 1.39%

2035 117,010 1.66% 21,756 1.29%

Source: San Joaquin Council of Governments, Countywide Population/Household/Employment Update, 2009;

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.

B. Household Characteristics and Housing Supply

The section provides an analysis of household characteristics and housing supply. The first

section analyzes household characteristics, such as household population, composition, size,

tenure, and overcrowding. More simply stated, it summarizes the profile of Manteca residents

living in private households, whether they are renters or owners, how many people live in a

household, and if it is overcrowded. The second section analyzes the city’s housing inventory and

supply, including a discussion of vacant units.

1. Household Characteristics

The first part of this section analyzes household characteristics including household population,

tenure, and household composition.

Household Population

Household population is an important measure for establishing the number of persons residing in

private households. Persons in institutional or group quarters are not included in the count of

household population. As of 2010 Manteca had a total household population of 66,601 with 495

people (or less than 1 percent) living in group quarters. With 21,618 households, the city had an

average three persons per household.

Household Composition

The U.S. Census divides households into two different categories, depending on their

composition: family and non-family. Family households are those consisting of two or more

related persons living together. Non-family households include persons who live alone or in

groups composed of unrelated individuals. Manteca is known as ―the family city‖ and, as shown

-



in Table 9, families made up a larger share of the population in Manteca than in San Joaquin

County or California. In 2000, 76.3 percent of Manteca households were family households

compared to 74.2 percent in the county and 68.9 percent in the State. From 2000 to 2010, family

households as a percentage of total households increased by a small amount in Manteca, San

Joaquin County, and California to 76.7 percent, 74.9 percent, and 68.7 percent, respectively.

Table 9 Family and Non-Family Households

Manteca, San Joaquin County, and California 2000 and 2010



2000

Family Households 12,485 76.3% 134,708 74.2% 7,920,049 68.9%

Non-Family Households 3,883 23.7% 46,921 25.8% 3,582,821 31.1%


2010

Family Households 16,572 76.7% 161,057 74.9% 8,642,473 68.7%

Non-Family Households 5,046 23.3% 53,950 25.1% 3,935,025 31.3%


Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010.

Tenure

Tenure, or how many units are owner- versus renter-occupied, is a measure of the rates of

homeownership in a jurisdiction. Tenure for type of unit and number of bedrooms can help

estimate demand for a diversity of housing types. The owner versus renter distribution of a

community's housing stock influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential

stability is influenced by tenure, with ownership housing evidencing a much lower turnover rate

than rental housing.

Home equity is the largest single source of household wealth for most Americans. Median net

worth for renters is about 2 percent of that of homeowners. The national homeownership rate has

constantly risen from around 40 percent before World War II, up to 69.0 percent in 2005.

However, following the housing bubble burst in 2006 this rate dropped to 64.0 percent in 2014.

Many economists feel that anything over 70 percent is not sustainable in the long run and will

lead to a housing bubble.

Figure 3 shows rates of homeownership and renter occupancy in Manteca, San Joaquin County,

and California in 2010. As shown in the figure, Manteca had a slightly higher rate of

homeownership (62.5 percent) than the county (59.2 percent) and the state (55.9 percent) in 2010.

-




Figure 3 Owner-occupied and Renter-occupied Housing Units

Manteca, San Joaquin County, California 2010


Overcrowding

U.S. Census Bureau standards define a housing unit as overcrowded when the total number of

occupants is greater than one person per room, excluding kitchens and bathrooms. A typical

home might have a total of five rooms (three bedrooms, living room, and dining room). If more

than five people were living in the home, it would be considered overcrowded. There is some

debate about whether units with larger households where seven people might occupy a home with

six rooms should really be considered overcrowded. Nonetheless, units with more than 1.5

persons per room are considered severely overcrowded, and should be recognized as a significant

housing problem.

Table 10 below compares housing overcrowding data for Manteca with data for San Joaquin

County and California. In 2013, 93.7 percent of Manteca’s housing units had 1.0 or fewer

persons per room, meaning 6.3 percent would be considered overcrowded. Of all units in

Manteca, 4.8 percent had between 1.01 and 1.50 persons per room; 1.3 percent had between 1.51

and 2.0 persons per room; and 0.3 percent had more than 2.0 persons per room. These statistics

show that overcrowding was less of a problem in 2013 in Manteca than in San Joaquin County

Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

Manteca 62.5% 37.5%

San Joaquin County 59.2% 40.8%

California 55.9% 44.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Pe

rce

nt

of

Tota

l

• • •

-



where 7.3 percent of all households had more than 1.0 persons per room, and in California where

8.2 percent of households were considered overcrowded.

Overcrowding is typically more of a problem in rental units than owner-occupied units. When

broken out by tenure, 76.0 percent of the overcrowded households in Manteca were renter

households. Only 2.6 percent (339) of Manteca’s owner households had 1.01 or more persons per

room, while 11.6 percent (1,076) of the renter households had 1.01 or more persons per room in

2013. In San Joaquin County 3.9 percent of owner households and 11.9 percent of renter

households were overcrowded. Statewide overcrowding was much higher than it was in Manteca

and similar to the county with 4.1 percent of owner households and 13.1 percent of renter

households having greater than 1.0 persons per room. Based on this information, Manteca had

less of a need for large housing units in 2013 than other jurisdictions.

Table 10 Overcrowding


Persons Per Room Manteca San Joaquin County California


Owner-Occupied

0.50 or less 8,747 67.1% 82,531 67.3% 4,655,309 68.2%

0.51 to 1.00 3,955 30.3% 35,391 28.8% 1,889,899 27.7%

1.01 to 1.50 253 1.9% 3,796 3.1% 208,584 3.1%

1.51 to 2.00 73 0.6% 661 0.5% 50,348 0.7%

2.01 or more 13 0.1% 318 0.3% 18,280 0.3%

Total 13,041 100.0% 122,697 100.0% 6,822,420 100.0%

Renter-Occupied

0.50 or less 4,528 48.8% 40,884 44.0% 2,651,752 46.0%

0.51 to 1.00 3,681 39.6% 41,059 44.1% 2,353,491 40.9%

1.01 to 1.50 810 8.7% 8,323 8.9% 467,997 8.1%

1.51 to 2.00 217 2.3% 2,210 2.4% 205,679 3.6%

2.01 or more 49 0.5% 534 0.6% 80,383 1.4%

Total 9,285 100.0% 93,010 100.0% 5,759,302 100.0%

Total Occupied Housing Units

0.50 or less 13,275 59.5% 123,415 57.2% 7,307,061 58.1%

0.51 to 1.00 7,636 34.2% 76,450 35.4% 4,243,390 33.7%

1.01 to 1.50 1,063 4.8% 12,119 5.6% 676,581 5.4%

1.51 to 2.00 290 1.3% 2,871 1.3% 256,027 2.0%

2.01 or more 62 0.3% 852 0.4% 98,663 0.8%

Total 22,326 100.0% 215,707 100.0% 12,581,722 100.0%


-




Household Size

Table 11 shows average household size by tenure for Manteca, San Joaquin County, and

California in 2013. Manteca had a slightly smaller proportion (17.1 percent) of large households

(five or more members) than San Joaquin County (17.7 percent), and a larger proportion than

California (14.2 percent). Manteca and San Joaquin County also had a smaller proportion of one-

and two-person households than California in 2013 (49.0 percent and48.9 percent compared to

54.4 percent, respectively).

Table 11 Household Size by Tenure




Owner Occupied

1 Person 2,061 15.8% 22,581 18.4% 1,376,749 20.2%

2 Persons 4,604 35.3% 40,952 33.4% 2,309,248 33.8%

3 Persons 2,175 16.7% 20,002 16.3% 1,129,305 16.6%

4 Persons 1,975 15.1% 19,648 16.0% 1,069,893 15.7%

5 Persons 1,393 10.7% 11,372 9.3% 520,103 7.6%

6 Persons 404 3.1% 4,311 3.5% 228,532 3.3%

7 Persons or more 429 3.3% 3,831 3.1% 188,590 2.8%

Total 13,041 100.0% 122,697 100.0% 6,822,420 100.0%

Renter Occupied

1 Persons 2,090 22.5% 21,540 23.2% 1,687,603 29.3%

2 Persons 2,185 23.5% 20,300 21.8% 1,469,541 25.5%

3 Persons 1,831 19.7% 16,483 17.7% 938,526 16.3%

4 Persons 1,594 17.2% 16,060 17.3% 808,875 14.0%

5 Persons 991 10.7% 10,176 10.9% 473,496 8.2%

6 Persons 221 2.4% 4,407 4.7% 216,458 3.8%

7 Persons or more 373 4.0% 4,044 4.3% 164,803 2.9%

Total 9,285 100.0% 93,010 100.0% 5,759,302 100.0%

All Households

1 Person 4,151 18.6% 44,121 20.5% 3,064,352 24.4%

2 Persons 6,789 30.4% 61,252 28.4% 3,778,789 30.0%

3 Persons 4,006 17.9% 36,485 16.9% 2,067,831 16.4%

4 Persons 3,569 16.0% 35,708 16.6% 1,878,768 14.9%

5 Persons 2,384 10.7% 21,548 10.0% 993,599 7.9%

6 Persons 625 2.8% 8,718 4.0% 444,990 3.5%

7 Persons or more 802 3.6% 7,875 3.7% 353,393 2.8%

Total 22,326 100.0% 215,707 100.0% 12,581,722 100.0%


-



Table 12 shows the number of bedrooms by housing unit by tenure in Manteca, San Joaquin

County, and California in 2013. As shown in the table, 71.2 percent of occupied housing units in

Manteca contained three or more bedrooms in 2013. This is higher than the percentage of units

with three or more bedrooms in San Joaquin County (66.9 percent) and California (55.3 percent).

This is likely due to a combination of factors, including higher rates of homeownership, a higher

percentage of family households, and a larger percentage of newer units in Manteca. Renter-

occupied units tend to have a smaller number of bedrooms than owner-occupied units. This was

the case in Manteca in 2013, where 87.3 percent of owner-occupied units had three or more

bedrooms, compared to only 48.5 percent of renter-occupied units. However, the percentage of

renter units in Manteca with three or more bedrooms is larger than the percentage in San Joaquin

County (43.6 percent) and California (28.1 percent).

Table 12 Number of Bedrooms by Tenure




Owner Occupied

No bedroom 45 0.3% 709 0.6% 34,390 0.5%

1 bedroom 102 0.8% 2,047 1.7% 181,384 2.7%

2 bedrooms 1509 11.6% 16,265 13.3% 1,263,466 18.5%

3 bedrooms 6338 48.6% 59,555 48.5% 3,069,689 45.0%

4 bedrooms 3804 29.2% 33,029 26.9% 1,793,072 26.3%

5 or more bedrooms 1243 9.5% 11,092 9.0% 480,419 7.0%

Total 13,041 100.0% 122,697 100.0% 6,822,420 100.0%

Renter Occupied

No bedroom 137 1.5% 3,336 3.6% 368,754 6.4%

1 bedroom 1391 15.0% 16,240 17.5% 1,574,205 27.3%

2 bedrooms 3253 35.0% 32,904 35.4% 2,197,238 38.2%

3 bedrooms 3577 38.5% 29,027 31.2% 1,180,377 20.5%

4 bedrooms 803 8.6% 9,076 9.8% 358,112 6.2%

5 or more bedrooms 124 1.3% 2427 2.6% 80,616 1.4%

Total 9,285 100.0% 93,010 100.0% 5,759,302 100.0%

All Households

No bedroom 182 0.8% 4,045 1.9% 403,144 3.2%

1 bedroom 1493 6.7% 18,287 8.5% 1,755,589 14.0%

2 bedrooms 4762 21.3% 49,169 22.8% 3,460,704 27.5%

3 bedrooms 9915 44.4% 88,582 41.1% 4,250,066 33.8%

4 bedrooms 4607 20.6% 42,105 19.5% 2,151,184 17.1%

5 or more bedrooms 1367 6.1% 13,519 6.3% 561,035 4.5%

Total 22,326 100.0% 215,707 100.0% 12,581,722 100.0%


-




Average household size is a function of household population (the group quarters population is

not counted) divided by the number of occupied housing units. Table 13 shows the average

household size for Manteca, San Joaquin County, and California. The average number of persons

per household (i.e., persons per occupied housing unit) remained relatively the same in Manteca

between 2000 and 2014. There was a slight increase in average household size from 2.98 in 2000

to 3.08 in 2000 and to 3.15 in 2014. The average household sizes in Manteca were similar to

those in the county during this time period, and slightly larger than the statewide average.

Table 13 Average Household Size by Tenure

Manteca, San Joaquin County, and California 2000, 2010, and 2014

Tenure


2000 2010 2014 2000 2010 2014 2000 2010 2014

All Households 2.98 3.08 3.15 3.00 3.12 3.20 2.87 2.90 2.95

Owner Occupied 3.06 3.05 n/d 2.96 3.05 n/d 2.93 2.95 n/d

Renter Occupied 2.85 3.13 n/d 3.06 3.22 n/d 2.79 2.83 n/d

n/d = no data available Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010; California Department of Finance,2014.

Based on the information regarding housing unit and household sizes, Manteca has a relatively

smaller need for large housing units than the county and state. While Manteca had a similar

average household size, the city also had larger housing units and lower overcrowding rates than

the county and state.

2. Housing Inventory and Supply

While the previous section discussed the characteristics of persons living in households, this

section provides information about the total supply of existing housing in Manteca. This section

includes information about the total number of housing units available in the city, changes in

vacancy, and structural condition of the units.

Housing Units

Table 14 shows comparative data on the housing stock in Manteca, San Joaquin County, and

California in 2011 and 2014. The table shows the total housing stock in each area according to

the type of structures in which units are located.

As shown in Table 14, single-family detached housing units account for the overwhelming

majority of housing in Manteca in 2014. At 76.9 percent of the total housing stock in 2014,

single-family detached units in Manteca make up a much larger share of the total than in the state

overall, where only 58.0 percent of all units are single-family detached. From 2011 to 2014, 887

-



single-family detached units were built in Manteca, making up 81.1 percent of all new units

constructed.

Multi-family housing with five or more units makes up the next largest segment of Manteca’s

housing stock, comprising 10.9 percent of the total in 2014; however, between 2011 and 2014,

only a little over 200 units were built in multi-family complexes with five or more units.

Table 14 Housing Stock by Type

Manteca, San Joaquin County, and California 2011 & 2014

Year Total Units Single-Family Multi-Family

Mobile Homes Detached Attached 2 to 4 5 plus

Manteca

2011 # 23,459 17,994 1,134 1,068 2,468 795

% 100.0% 76.7% 4.8% 4.6% 10.5% 3.4%

2014 # 24,553 18,881 1,134 1,068 2,673 797

% 100.0% 76.9% 4.6% 4.3% 10.9% 3.2%

San Joaquin County

2011 # 234,343 169,721 12,281 14,880 28,885 8,576

% 100.0% 72.4% 5.2% 6.3% 12.3% 3.7%

2014 # 236,943 172,059 12,279 14,862 29,158 8,585

% 100.0% 72.6% 5.2% 6.3% 12.3% 3.6%

California

2011 # 13,704,850 7,976,350 967,725 1,112,383 3,090,252 558,134

% 100.0% 58.2% 7.1% 8.1% 22.5% 4.1%

2014 # 13,845,281 8,038,217 972,976 1,119,175 3,154,907 560,000

% 100.0% 58.1% 7.0% 8.1% 22.8% 4.0%

Source: California Department of Finance, 2011 and 2014.

Occupancy/Vacancy Rates

According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the

desired vacancy rates necessary to provide a stable housing environment are approximately 2

percent for the for-sale housing and 5 percent for rental housing. As shown in Table 15, Manteca

and San Joaquin County have both had lower vacancy rates than the state average in 2000. The

vacancy rate in Manteca almost doubled from 3.4 percent in 2000 to 6.5 in 2010 and has stayed

constant since then. However, it remains lower than San Joaquin County (8.0 percent) and

California (8.0 percent).

-




Table 15 Occupancy/Vacancy

Manteca, San Joaquin County, and California 2000, 2010, and 2014

2000 2010 2014


Manteca

Occupied Units 16,368 96.6% 21,618 93.5% 22,947 93.5%

Vacant Units 569 3.4% 1514 6.5% 1,606 6.5%

Total Housing Units 16,937 100.0% 23,132 100.0% 24,553 100.0%

San Joaquin County

Occupied Units 181,629 96.0% 215,007 92.0% 217,956 92.0%

Vacant Units 7,531 4.0% 18,748 8.0% 18,987 8.0%

Total Housing Units 189,160 100.0% 233,755 100.0% 236,943 100.0%

California

Occupied Units 11,502,870 94.2% 12,577,498 91.9% 12,731,223 92.0%

Vacant Units 711,679 5.8% 1,102,583 8.1% 1,114,058 8.0%

Total Housing Units 12,214,549 100.0% 13,680,081 100.0% 13,845,281 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010; California Department of Finance, 2014.

Although the overall vacancy rate was 6.5 percent in Manteca in 2010, the vacancy rate of for-

sale housing available for occupancy was only 1.7 percent and the vacancy rate for rental housing

available for occupancy was 2.4 percent (see Table 16).

-



Table 16 Vacant Units by Type


Vacancy Status Manteca

San Joaquin

County California


For rent 566 2.4% 7,765 3.3% 374,610 2.7%

For sale only 381 1.6% 3,632 1.6% 154,775 1.1%

Rented or sold; not occupied 131 0.6% 1,056 0.5% 54,635 0.4%

For seasonal; recreational; or

occasional use 67 0.3%

852 0.4%

302,815 2.2%

For Migratory Workers 0 0.0% 76 0.0% 2,100 0.0%

Other vacant 369 1.6% 5,443 2.3% 215,748 1.6%

Total Vacant 1,514 6.5% 18,748 8.1% 1,102,583 8.1%

Total Units 23,132 100.0% 233,755 100.0% 13,680,081 100.0%

Source: California Department of Finance, 2010.

Housing Conditions

The U.S. Census provides only limited data that can be used to infer the condition of Manteca’s

housing stock. For example, the Census reports on whether housing units have complete

plumbing and kitchen facilities. Since only a very small percentage of all housing units in

Manteca lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities (see Table 17), these indicators do not

reveal much about overall housing conditions.

Since housing stock age and condition are generally correlated, one Census variable that provides

an indication of housing conditions is the age of a community’s housing stock. As shown in

Table 17, the median year built for all housing units in Manteca as of 2013 was 1987, compared

to 1981 for San Joaquin County and 1974 for California. Nearly 31 percent of Manteca’s housing

stock was fifteen or less years old in 2013. Another 33.6 percent of the housing stock was

between 15 and 35 years old. These statistics reflect the tremendous growth in the area during the

1980s and 1990s and the growth that continues today. Because over 44 percent of the housing

units in Manteca were 25 years old or less in 2013 (compared to 35 percent in the county and 23

percent in the State), Manteca’s housing stock should still be in relatively good condition

compared to communities with larger shares of older homes. Between 2010 and 2014, there was

a net increase of about 1,421 housing units in Manteca, almost all of which should still be in

sound condition.

The City used to operate a housing rehabiliataiton program; however, with limited funding the

program is now administered by the County’s Community Development Department. (see

Housing Resources section for more information on these programs). According to Manteca

Code Enforcement officals, there has been a trend toward demolition of dilapidated homes. In the

past six years, seven residential properties have been demolished because the properties were

-




uninhabitable. Officials estimated that approximately one percent of the housing stock is in need

of rehabilitation or replacement.

Table 17 Age of Housing Stock & Housing Stock Conditions by Tenure




Owner Occupied Housing Units

Built 2010 or later 548 4.2% 1,029 0.8% 41,820 0.6%

Built 2000 to 2009 4,309 33.0% 30,327 24.7% 902,092 13.2%

Built 1990 to 1999 1,544 11.8% 20,050 16.3% 791,693 11.6%

Built 1980 to 1989 2,887 22.1% 18,754 15.3% 1,039,793 15.2%

Built 1960 to 1979 2,703 20.7% 26,722 21.8% 2,025,971 29.7%

Built 1940 to 1959 893 6.8% 18,504 15.1% 1,472,200 21.6%

Built 1939 or earlier 157 1.2% 7,311 6.0% 548,851 8.0%

Total 13,041 100.0% 122,697 100.0% 6,822,420 100.0%

Units Lacking Complete Plumbing

Facilities 15 0.1% 115 0.1% 18,031 0.3%

Units Lacking Complete Kitchen

Facilities 0 0.0% 244 0.2% 24,428 0.4%

Median Year Built 1990 1985 1974

Renter Occupied Housing Units

Built 2010 or later 59 0.6% 413 0.4% 38,307 0.7%

Built 2000 to 2009 1,983 21.4% 14,382 15.5% 593,741 10.3%

Built 1990 to 1999 1,446 15.6% 10,772 11.6% 564,921 9.8%

Built 1980 to 1989 1,616 17.4% 15,135 16.3% 870,427 15.1%

Built 1960 to 1979 2,877 31.0% 28,217 30.3% 1,970,533 34.2%

Built 1940 to 1959 974 10.5% 16,415 17.6% 1,095,395 19.0%

Built 1939 or earlier 330 3.6% 7,676 8.3% 625,978 10.9%

Total 9,285 100.0% 93,010 100.0% 5,759,302 100.0%


Facilities 42 0.5% 375 0.4% 41,383 0.7%


Facilities 226 2.4% 2,195 2.4% 129,060 2.2%


Total Occupied Housing Units

Built 2010 or later 607 2.7% 1,442 0.7% 80,127 0.6%

Built 2000 to 2009 6,292 28.2% 44,709 20.7% 1,495,833 11.9%

Built 1990 to 1999 2,990 13.4% 30,822 14.3% 1,356,614 10.8%

Built 1980 to 1989 4,503 20.2% 33,889 15.7% 1,910,220 15.2%

-



Table 17 Age of Housing Stock & Housing Stock Conditions by Tenure




Built 1960 to 1979 5,580 25.0% 54,939 25.5% 3,996,504 31.8%

Built 1940 to 1959 1,867 8.4% 34,919 16.2% 2,567,595 20.4%

Built 1939 or earlier 487 2.2% 14,987 6.9% 1,174,829 9.3%

Total 22,326 100.0% 215,707 100.0% 12,581,722 100.0%


Facilities 57 0.3% 490 0.2% 59,414 0.5%


Facilities 226 1.0% 2,439 1.1% 153,488 1.2%



Housing Affordability

Description of Measures

There are five main approaches to measuring housing affordability commonly used by housing

researchers.1

Share of income

Supply-demand mismatch

Housing wage

Median ratios comparison

Residual income

The share of income approach is the most common. It measures housing affordability in terms

of the percentage of income that a household spends on its housing. Households allocating above

a defined share of income on housing are classified as having a housing affordability problem.

The standard threshold is 30 percent of gross income spent on gross housing costs, including

utilities. Above this ratio, households are often referred to as suffering from a ―housing cost

burden.‖2

1 Categories and descriptions of each are derived from the report: Measuring the Nation’s Rental Housing Affordability

Problem, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University (June 2005). 2 A ―cost burden‖ is defined by HUD as the fraction of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs; in

other words , the ratio between housing cost and income. However, the general term ―cost burden‖ is often used as

shorthand for a cost burden exceeding 30 percent of income. HUD defines a ―moderate cost burden‖ as housing costs

between 31 and 50 percent of reported income and a ―severe cost burden‖ as housing costs exceeding 50 percent of

reported income.

-




While simple to understand and relatively easy to calculate, this approach has several drawbacks:

It considers how much people spend on housing but not what they get in return for it in

terms of neighborhood and housing quality, as well as proximity to jobs and shopping.

Focusing exclusively on housing costs as a share of income does not take into account

tradeoffs households make to lower housing costs that add to other costs, such as longer

commutes,3 poor housing quality, distressed neighborhoods, or crowded conditions.

It does not consider situations where spending large shares of income on housing is more

of a choice rather than a necessity–some households choose to spend more on housing

because they value it more. Determining whether a household is spending more by

choice or necessity requires subjectively defined standards of minimally acceptable

housing.

It does not capture the extent to which changes in rental affordability over time may

reflect changes in the quality of housing rather than differences in the rate of increase in

rents of housing of constant quality relative to the changing incomes of the households

that typically occupy these constant quality units. In other words, it does not distinguish

changes in housing affordability caused by changes in the price of housing from changes

in its quality.

In general, while cost burdens are heavily concentrated at the bottom of the income distribution

nationwide, they also appear in higher income ranges. The Measuring the Nation’s Rental

Housing Affordability Problem report states that ―recent studies by the National Housing

Conference show high levels of cost burdens among working families, especially in the higher

cost housing markets where incomes for some essential service occupations (including teachers,

nurses, police officers, and janitors) are not adequately adjusted for the local cost of living.

Furthermore, trade-offs of housing and transportation costs are more acutely observed among

middle-income households, who often opt to live far away from employment centers in order to

find affordable housing, but end up with longer and costlier commutes as a result.‖4

While nationally there is an increasing mismatch between the incomes of renter households in the

bottom 20th percentile and the rents of housing in the bottom 20

th percentile, a number of

observers have also suggested that the affordable housing crisis is, at least in part, actually an

income crisis.

In the supply-demand mismatch approach, the number of households with incomes at or below

a particular level is compared with the number of rentals with rents that are affordable at 30

percent of the threshold income (with adjustments for household size and number of bedrooms).

3 A Center for Housing Policy (CHP) study found that the share of total household expenditures on transportation was

three times higher for households spending less than 30 percent on housing than for households with half their

expenditures on housing. Other trade-offs were also evident, including reduced spending on healthcare and food among

households with higher housing expenditures. ―Something’s Gotta Give: Working Families and the Cost of Housing,‖

New Century Housing, Vol. 5-1, Center for Housing Policy, 2005. 4 Measuring the Nation’s Rental Housing Affordability Problem, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University

(June 2005), p. 40.

-



The difference between the number of households at or below the adjusted income thresholds and

the number of rentals at or below the adjusted rent thresholds is considered a measure of the

mismatch between the supply and demand for affordable housing. An extension of this

―mismatch‖ approach subtracts units that are affordable but occupied by higher-income

households because they are not available for occupancy by households with incomes below the

threshold.

While relatively straightforward, this approach is more easily misinterpreted than measures of the

share of households reporting cost burdens for the following reasons:

It implicitly assumes that rentals affordable at 30 percent of income are considered

affordable by all those who might rent them.

It implies that all the units below an income threshold are affordable to all households

below those thresholds.

It does not take into account the location of ―affordable‖ rentals and whether these align

with the location of households that might ―demand‖ them want to live.

As one moves up the income distribution, results are harder to interpret meaningfully

(e.g., what is the meaning of a ―gap‖ between the number of rentals ―affordable‖ to

households earning between 80 and 100 percent of area median income and the number

of these households when they can, by definition, afford all the rentals below the lower

threshold cutoff?)

In the housing wage approach, the rent of a standard, modest quality rental with either one or

two bedrooms in an area is compared to the multiples of full-time minimum wage work it would

take to afford (at 30 percent of income) that apartment. The rent standard commonly used is

HUD’s fair market rent (FMR).5 As stated in the Measuring The Nation’s Rental Housing

Affordability Problem report, this approach ―provides a simple way to convey what turns out to

be a consistent problem across all measured geographies–in every metro area it takes more than

one full-time minimum wage job to afford a unit somewhat below the middle of the rent

distribution.‖ The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) produced a 2004 report that

showed that in no state is minimum-wage full-time work sufficient to afford the FMR for a two-

bedroom apartment.6

In the median ratios comparison approach, a ratio is formed between the rent at some point in a

rent distribution and the corresponding point in an income distribution. Most commonly, the

median rent in an area is compared to the median household income in the same area. In this

example, the share of income that the median household would have to spend to rent a median

rental is used as a measure of how unaffordable the housing stock is in a particular market to

households in that market.

5 HUD’s FMR standard is typically the 40th percentile rent of recently rented apartments within an entire metropolitan

area or of non-metropolitan areas of a state. It is estimated using a random-digit dialing survey. 6 Out of Reach 2003: America’s Housing Wage Climbs, National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2004.

-




While this approach provides a quick summary of the housing-income situation (and may be most

useful when comparing different areas to each other), its major drawback is that, like the supply-

demand mismatch approach and the housing wage approach, it takes a criterion household and

compares it to a criterion rent instead of comparing what individual households are actually

spending for their housing.

The residual income approach examines the absolute amount of income left over after housing

expenses, rather than the share of income allocated to housing, to identify affordability problems.

This approach focuses on the proportion of households most harmed by high housing costs, and

classifies households with too little income left over to meet basic needs as ―shelter poor.‖ This

approach has several shortcomings, including potentially understating the affordability problems

of larger households and those with children who may face additional necessary expenses.

When discussing housing affordability and notwithstanding the caveats discussed above, this

Housing Element primarily uses the housing costs burden concept from the share of income

approach for three reasons: 1) HCD requires a cost burden analysis; 2) it is a straightforward and

easily understood measure; and 3) the data is readily available. However, we have supplemented

the cost burden analysis with data regarding FMRs and local income levels.

Housing Cost Burdens

The HCD Housing Element Review Worksheet calls for an analysis of the proportion of ―lower

income‖ households ―overpaying for housing.‖ Lower-income households are defined as those

that earn 80 percent or less of the area median income. This is a share of income approach to

measure housing affordability in terms of the percentage of income that a household spends on its

housing.

An assessment of housing cost burdens requires that information about household size be

combined with information on household income for each household individually. HUD creates

a special tabulation for use in Consolidated Plans.7

The data in this section uses this

Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data from HUD’s State of the Cities

Data Systems (SOCDS) website.

A ―moderate cost burden‖ is defined by HUD as gross housing costs between 31 and 50 percent

of gross income. A ―severe cost burden‖ is defined as gross housing costs exceeding 50 percent

of gross income. For renters, gross housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities.

For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities.

Income groups are shown in the SOCDS CHAS tabulation based on the HUD-adjusted area

median family income (HAMFI). The area median family income is based on the Stockton

7 The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data file is a detailed tabulation of the 2007-2011 ACS

estimates sponsored by HUD. It includes extensive data on a variety of physical and financial housing characteristics

and needs categorized by HUD-defined income limits (30, 50, and 80 percent of area median income) and HUD-

specified household types. CHAS indicators are estimates based on a longitudinal study of a sample of households.

These ―special tabulation‖ data are used by local governments for housing planning as part of the Consolidated

Planning process and by HUD for various allocation formulas to distribute funds to localities.

-



Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), encompassing all of San Joaquin County. In 1974

Congress defined ―low-income‖ and ―very low-income‖ for HUD rental programs as incomes not

exceeding 80 and 50 percent, respectively, of the area median family income, as adjusted by

HUD.8

Table 18 shows the SOCDS CHAS special tabulation data from the 2007-2011 ACS Census

regarding the percentage of households with a moderate housing cost burden (greater than 30

percent) and severe cost burden (greater than 50 percent) by income group and tenure for

Manteca, San Joaquin County, and California.

As shown in Table 18, 46.0 percent of all households in Manteca had a housing cost burden

greater than 30 percent in 2011. This rate is slightly more than that of San Joaquin County (45.7

percent) and California (45.1 percent). About 20.2 percent of all households in Manteca had a

housing cost burden greater than 50 percent in 2011 compared to 22.4 percent and 21.8 percent

for San Joaquin County and California, respectively. As would be expected, housing cost burdens

were more severe for households with lower incomes. Among lower-income households

(incomes less than or equal to 80 percent of the area median family income (MFI)), 74.8 percent

of households in Manteca had a housing cost burden greater than 30 percent in 2011 compared to

35.2 percent of non-lower-income households. This rate of housing cost burden for lower-income

households is slightly higher in Manteca than in both San Joaquin County (72.1 percent) and

California (69.6 percent). This data points to the need for more affordable housing units in

Manteca to meet the needs of lower-income households.

Rates of housing cost burden were greater among low-income renter households than among low-

income owner households. However, for non-lower-income renter households, rates of housing

cost burden were lower than those of owner-occupied households. This trend was common across

the city, county, and the state. In Manteca 80.1 percent of low-income renter households paid 30

percent or more of their monthly incomes for housing costs in 2011, compared to 67.6 percent of

low-income owner households. Among non-low-income households, the percentage of owner

households with cost burden more than 30 percent was far higher than renter households (39.0

percent compared to 25.0 percent).

8 Statutory adjustments now include upper and lower caps for areas with low or high ratios of housing costs to income

and, for each non-metropolitan county, a lower cap equal to its state’s non-metropolitan average. Estimates of the

median family income and the official income cutoffs for each metropolitan area and non-metropolitan county are

based on the most recent Decennial Census results and updated each year by HUD. Each base income cutoff is assumed

to apply to a household of four, and official cutoffs are further adjusted by household size: one person, 70 percent of

base; two persons, 80 percent; three persons, 90 percent; five persons, 108 percent; six persons, 116 percent; etc.

-




Table 18 Housing Cost Burden by Household Income Classification



Owners Renters Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters Total

Household Income <= 80% HAMFI

Total Households 2,530 3,395 5,925 30,495 47,415 77,910 2,098,235 3,330,700 5,428,935

Number w/ cost burden > 30% 1,710 2,720 4,430 19,740 36,430 56,170 1,332,125 2,443,865 3,775,985

Percent w/ cost burden > 30% 67.6% 80.1% 74.8% 64.7% 76.8% 72.1% 63.5% 73.4% 69.6%

Number w/ cost burden > 50% 1,230 1,640 2,875 14,370 22,595 36,965 900,210 1,402,590 2,302,800


Household Income > 80% HAMFI


Number w/ cost burden > 30% 4,435 1,080 5,515 33,585 7,510 41,095 1,535,840 296,100 1,831,945


Number w/ cost burden > 50% 1,270 220 1,490 9,770 915 10,685 379,675 23,165 402,840


Total Households






Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data sets, 2007-2011.

-



Ability to Pay for Housing

The following section compares 2008 income levels and ability to pay for housing with actual housing

costs. Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reports the Area

Median Income (AMI) for San Joaquin County which is part of the Stockton Metropolitan Area. The

State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) uses the AMI to set income levels

(i.e., extremely low-, very low-, low-, median-, moderate-, and above moderate-income) that are used in

affordable housing programs and projects. Since above moderate-income households do not generally

have problems locating affordable units, affordable housing is usually defined as units that are reasonably

priced for low- and moderate-income households. The list below shows the definition of housing income

limits as they are applied to housing units in Manteca.

Extremely Low-Income Unit is one that is affordable to households whose combined income is

between the floor set at the minimum Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and 30 percent of the

AMI. A household of four is considered to be extremely low-income in Manteca if its combined

income is $19,900 or less in 2014.

Very Low-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is

between 30 and 50 percent of the AMI. A household of four is considered to be very low-income

in Manteca if its combined income is between $19,900 and $33,150 in 2014.

Low-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is at or

between 50 and 80 percent of the AMI. A household of four is considered to be low-income in

Manteca if its combined income is between $33,150 and $53,050 in 2014.

Median-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is

between 80 and 100 percent of the AMI. A household of four is considered to be median-income

in Manteca if its combined income is between 53,050 and 66,300 (AMI) in 2014.

Moderate-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is

between 100 and 120 percent of AMI. A household of four is considered to be moderate-income

in Manteca if its combined income is between $66,300 and $79,550 in 2014.

According to HCD, the area median income for a four-person household in the Stockton MSA was

$66,300 in 2014. Income limits for larger or smaller households were higher or lower, respectively, and

are calculated using a formula developed by HUD (see Table 19 below).

-




Table 19 Income Limits based on Household Size

San Joaquin County 2014

Income Categories

Persons per Household

1 2 3 4 5

Extremely Low-Income $13,950 $15,950 $17,950 $19,900 $21,500

Very Low-Income $23,250 $26,550 $29,850 $33,150 $35,850

Low-Income $37,150 $42,450 $47,750 $53,050 $57,300

Median-Income $46,400 $53,050 $59,650 $66,300 $71,600

Moderate-Income $55,700 $63,650 $71,600 $79,550 $85,900

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2014.

Table 20 shows the 2014 HCD-defined household income limits for Extremely Low-, Very Low-, Low-,

and Moderate-Income households in the Stockton MSA (including Manteca) by the number of bedrooms

in the housing unit. It also shows maximum affordable monthly rents and maximum affordable purchase

prices for homes. For example, a three-person household was classified as low-income (80 percent of

median) with an annual income of up to $47,750 in 2014. A household with this income could afford to

pay a monthly gross rent (including utilities) of up to $1,194 or could afford to purchase a house priced at

or below $176,984.

The level at which FMRs are set is expressed as a percentile point within the rent distribution of standard

quality rental housing units in the FMR area. The basic standard for the FMR figures is the 40th

percentile. In other words, 60 percent of the rents in San Joaquin County are above the figures shown and

40 percent are below.

-



Table 20 Ability to Pay for Housing based on HUD Income Limits

Stockton MSA 2014

Extremely Low-Income Households at 30% of 2014 Median Family Income

Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 5 BR

Number of Persons 1 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5

Income Level $13,900 $14,900 $17,900 $20,700 $23,050 $23,850

Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $348 $373 $448 $518 $576 $596

Max. Purchase Price2 $57,540 $61,680 $74,099 $85,690 $95,418 $98,729

Very Low-Income Households at 50% of 2014 Median Family Income



Income Level $23,200 $24,850 $29,850 $34,500 $38,450 $39,800

Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $580 $621 $746 $863 $961 $995


Low-Income Households at 80% of 2014 Median Family Income



Income Level $37,150 $39,800 $47,750 $55,150 $61,550 $63,650

Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $929 $995 $1,194 $1,379 $1,539 $1,591


Median-Income Households at 100% of 2014 Median Family Income



Income Level $46,400 $49,750 $59,650 $68,950 $76,900 $79,550

Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $1,160 $1,244 $1,491 $1,724 $1,923 $1,989


Moderate-Income Households at 120% of 2014 Median Family Income



Income Level $55,700 $59,650 $71,600 $82,750 $92,300 $95,450

Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $1,393 $1,491 $1,790 $2,069 $2,308 $2,386


Notes: Incomes based on HCD's State Income Limits for 2014 for San Joaquin County. 1 Assumes that 30% of income is available for either: monthly rent, including utilities; or mortgage payment, taxes, mortgage

insurance, and homeowners insurance 2 Assumes 90% loan @ 5% annual interest rate and 30 year term; assumes taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners’

insurance account for 20% of total monthly payments

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2014; Mintier Harnish..

-




Table 21 shows HUD-defined fair market rent levels (FMR) for the Stockton MSA (including Manteca)

for 2014. In general, the FMR for an area is the amount that would be needed to pay the gross rent

(shelter rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of a modest (non-

luxury) nature with suitable amenities.9 HUD uses FMRs for a variety of purposes: FMRs determine the

eligibility of rental housing units for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments program; Section 8

Rental Certificate program participants cannot rent units whose rents exceed the FMRs; and FMRs also

serve as the payment standard used to calculate subsidies under the Rental Voucher program.

Since the FMR levels apply to the entire San Joaquin County, residents of communities with higher rental

rates are likely to find that there is a limited supply of rental units at the regional FMR levels (i.e., a 2-

bedroom unit for $930, with utilities included). The lack of affordability would be even worse for the

very low-income household mentioned above if the household has to spend more than the FMR amount

to rent a unit in Manteca.

Table 21 HUD Fair Market Rent

Stockton MSA 2014

Bedrooms in Unit 2014 FMR

Studio $595

1 Bedroom $709

2 Bedrooms $930

3 Bedrooms $1,370

4 Bedrooms $1,647

Notes: 40th percentile of market rents for Fiscal Year

2014 for Stockton MSA (San Joaquin County).

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 2014.

Comparing the current FMR levels to Table 20, a three-person household classified as low-income (80

percent of median) with an annual income of up to $47,750 could afford to pay $1,194 monthly gross rent

(including utilities). The 2014 FMR for a 2-bedroom unit is $930, which is affordable to the household,

assuming such a unit was available in Manteca. However, a three-person very low-income household

($29,850) could afford to pay only $746, which is below the 2014 FMR amount.

9 According to HUD, ―the level at which FMRs are set is expressed as a percentile point within the rent distribution

of standard-quality rental housing units. The current definition used is the 40th percentile rent, the dollar amount

below which 40 percent of the standard-quality rental housing units are rented. The 40th percentile rent is drawn

from the distribution of rents of all units occupied by recent movers (renter households who moved to their present

residence within the past 15 months). Public housing units and units less than 2 years old are excluded.‖

-



Affordable Housing by Income/Occupation

Table 22 is an abbreviated list of occupations and annual incomes for Manteca residents such as fire

fighters and police officers, and minimum wage earners. A fire fighter earning an income of $50,151

could be considered above low-income depending on the household size, and could afford to purchase a

home for $185,884. A registered nurse earning $91,894 could afford to pay an estimated $340,603 for a

home. With a median sale price of $315,000 in Manteca in 2014, only households with two wage earners,

such as a fire fighter and a registered nurse, or a police officer and teacher, would be able to afford the

median-priced home in Manteca (see Table 22).

-




Table 22 Affordable Rents and Housing Prices by Income and Occupation

San Joaquin/Stockton Metropolitann Statistical Area 2014

Category Average Income

Affordable Rent

1

Affordable House Price

2

General Occupations (2014)3

Fire Fighters $50,151 $1,254 $185,884

Police and Sheriff’s Patrol Officer $78,849 $1,971 $292,252

Registered Nurse (RN) $91,894 $2,297 $340,603

Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) $52,053 $1,301 $192,933

Preschool Teacher $26,841 $671 $99,486

Elementary School Teacher $65,620 $1,641 $243,219

Farmworkers and Laborers $18,356 $459 $68,036

Security Guards $21,463 $537 $79,552

Waiters and Waitresses $21,362 $534 $79,178

Cashiers $23,251 $581 $86,179

Two Wage Earners

Fire Fighter and Registered Nurse $142,045 $3,551 $526,487

Police Officer and Elementary School

Teacher $144,469 $3,612 $535,472

Preschool Teacher and Security Guard $48,304 $1,208 $179,038

Minimum Wage Earners

Single Wage Earner $18,720 $468 $75,615

Two Wage Earners $37,440 $936 $151,230

SSI (Aged or Disabled)

One person household with SSI only $6,421 $161 $19,981

Couple with SSI only $12,842 $321 $39,962

2008 HUD-Defined Income Groups (based on a household of 3 persons)

Extremely Low-Income (below 30%) $17,950 $449 $66,531

Very Low-Income (below 50%) $29,850 $746 $110,638

Low-Income (below 80%) $47,750 $1,194 $176,984

Moderate Income (below 120%) $71,600 $1,790 $265,384

Notes: 1Assumes 30 percent of income devoted to monthly rent, including utilities.

2Assumes 30 percent of income devoted to mortgage payment and taxes, 90 percent loan at 6 percent interest rate, 30-year term

3General Occupation incomes based on Occupational Employment Statistics for Stockton MSA

Sources: Mintier Harnish; California Employment Development Department, 2014; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development , 2014.

-



Housing Values

Between 1998 and 2008 there has been a significant boom and bust in local housing markets. Commonly

referred to as the ―housing bubble,‖ local markets exploded with construction and sales activity fueled

largely by sub-prime loans for homeowners. From January 2002 to June 2006 the median home price in

Manteca nearly doubled, from about $235,000 to $450,000, and then fell back to around $180,000 by

February 2009. Since 2009 home prices have been climbing back up but at a slower rate than the early

2000s and still remain lower than the prices between 2005 and 2008. This trend occurred throughout

California and in the surrounding cities of San Joaquin County (Figure 4). San Joaquin County was one of

the hardest hit markets when homeowners defaulted on sub-prime loans and went into foreclosure.

Overall, this has been a trend experienced throughout California and the nation due to high volumes of

housing stock purchased with sub-prime mortgages that contributed to the ―housing bubble‖ of inflated

sales rates and prices. Manteca was not an exception. As of June 2008 10.8 percent of homes in Manteca

and 10.5 percent of homes in San Joaquin County were in foreclosure. In 2014 this rate was less than 1.0

percent for Manteca. Table 23 shows home sale activity for San Joaquin County and communities in 2013

and 2014. Within this period 1,.293 homes were sold in Manteca and the median sale price increased by

15.0 percent. The annual percentage change of median sale price was 18.6 percent for San Joaquin

County. Figure 4

Median Home Price San Joaquin County

January 2002 to February 2009

Notes: Due to incomplete data, median sales prices for the city of Ripon are not shown in the figure.

Source: California Association of Realtors, Historic Housing Data, June 2008.

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

$500,000

$550,000

$600,000

$650,000

$700,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

San Joaquin

CountyLodi

Manteca

-




Table 23 Home Sale Activity

San Joaquin County and Communities 2013 & 2014

County/City/Area Homes

Sold

Median Sales Price

% Annual Change

2013 2014

Acampo 10 $340,250 $428,000 25.8%

Clements 5 $85,750 $250,000 191.6%

Escalon 142 $205,000 $300,000 46.3%

French Camp 7 $172,500 $187,000 8.4%

Lathrop 408 $248,500 $305,000 22.7%

Linden 20 $272,000 $300,000 10.3%

Lockeford 34 $197,000 $228,500 16.0%

Lodi 706 $202,500 $233,250 15.2%

Manteca 1,293 $274,000 $315,000 15.0%

Ripon 241 $300,000 $343,000 14.3%

Stockton 3,962 $146,000 $175,000 19.9%

Thornton 2 $90,000 $126,500 40.6%

Tracy 1,568 $340,500 $385,000 13.1%

Woodbridge 55 $272,000 $275,000 1.1%

San Joaquin County 8,491 $215,000 $255,000 18.6%

Source: Data Quick, 2015.

Table 24 and Figure 5 compares median family incomes to median home sales prices from 2009 to 2014

for Manteca. Generally, housing is considered affordable when a household spends 30 percent

(price/income ratio 3.0) of its income on housing. The median family income for Manteca decreased

significantly from $66,300 in 2012 to $58,200 in 2014. This happened simultaneously with an increase in

median home sale prices resulting in a home price to income ratio of 4.9. This means that in 2014

purchasing a median priced home would consume about 50 percent of a typical family’s income.

According to the National Association of Home Builders only 45.4 percent of the homes in Stockton

Metropolitan Statistical Area were affordable for median income households in 2014.

-



Figure 5 Home Price to Income Comparison

Manteca 2009-2014

Source: Zillow, 2009-2014.

Table 24 Home Price to Income Comparison

Manteca 2009-2014

Year Median Family

Income Median Home Sale

Prices Price/Income

2009 $63,600 $190,000 3.0

2010 $63,100 $191,000 3.0

2011 $65,400 $189,500 2.9

2012 $66,300 $183,000 2.8

2013 $58,600 $261,000 4.5

2014 $58,200 $284,000 4.9

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2009-2014; Zillow, 2009-

2014; Mintier Harnish.

Average Monthly Rents

Table 25 shows approximate rents for various apartment complexes as well as single-family homes in

Manteca as of February 2015. As shown, rents vary widely based on the number of bedrooms.

Depending on the cost of utilities, many of the apartments listed in Table 25 would be affordable to low-

income households. For example, the majority of the two-bedroom apartments and the average rental

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Median Family Income

Median Home Sale Price

-




rates for single-family homes listed in the table would likely be affordable to a low-income three-person

household that could afford $1,194 for rent and utilities. None of the rental units listed in the table would

be affordable to extremely low- or very low-income households; however, nearly all the units would be

affordable to low- and moderate-income households.

Table 25 Average Rental Rates For Apartments and Single-Family Homes

Manteca 2015

Apartment Complexes 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 5 or More

Park Place Apartments $905 - $930 $1099 - $1124 - - -

Olive Park - $845 - $955 - - -

Union North Apartments - $975 - $1085 $1,095 - -

Sandpiper Village - $1145 - $1175 - - -

Vista Verde Apartments $735 - $765 $915 - $1005 - - -

Other

Single-Family Homes - $950 $1,375 $1,723 $2,125

Multi-family Homes $690 $1,125 $1,248 - -

Note: Rental rates are approximate.

Sources: Online search of the following websites: www.zillow.com, www.trulia.com, and www.craigslist.com.

3. Special Housing Needs

Within the general population of Manteca there are several groups of people who have special housing

needs. These needs can make it difficult for members of these groups to locate suitable housing. The

following subsections discuss the special housing needs of six groups identified in State housing element

law (Government Code, Section 65583(a)(6)): ―elderly, persons with disabilities, large families,

farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency

shelter.‖ Where possible, estimates of the population or number of households in Manteca belonging to

each group are shown.

Senior Households

Seniors are defined as persons 65 years and older, and senior households are those households headed by

a person 65 years and older. Seniors often face unique housing problems. While many may own their

homes outright, fixed retirement incomes may not always be adequate to cover rising utility rates and

insurance. Also, many elderly homeowners do not have sufficient savings to finance the necessary

repairs costs. This is a situation commonly described as ―house-rich and cash-poor.‖

Table 26 shows information on the number of seniors, the number of senior households, and senior

households by housing tenure in Manteca, San Joaquin County, and California in 2010. Seniors

represented 9.9 percent of the population in Manteca in 2010 compared to 10.4 percent and 11.4 percent

of the population in San Joaquin County and California, respectively. Senior households represented 18.3

percent of all households in Manteca compared to 19.7 percent in San Joaquin County and 20.4 percent in

-



California. Senior households have a high homeownership rate. Nearly 76 percent of senior households in

Manteca owned their homes in 2010, compared to 62.5 percent of all households in the city. Senior

households represented 22.1 percent of all owner households in Manteca in 2010.

Table 26 Senior Populations and Households




Population

TOTAL POPULATION 67,096 100.0% 685,306 100.0% 37,253,956 100.0%

Total Persons 65 years and older 6,653 9.9% 71,181 10.4% 4,246,514 11.4%

Male 2,818 42.4% 30,706 43.1% 1,847,017 43.5%

Female 3,835 57.6% 40,475 56.9% 2,399,497 56.5%

Households

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 21,618 100.0% 215,007 100.0% 12,577,498 100.0%

Owner 13,521 62.5% 127,270 59.2% 7,035,371 55.9%

Renter 8,097 37.5% 87,737 40.8% 5,542,127 44.1%

Senior Headed-Households 3,952 100.0% 42,289 100.0% 2,565,949 100.0%

Owner 2,993 75.7% 31,173 73.7% 1,871,250 72.9%

Renter 959 24.3% 11,116 26.3% 694,699 27.1%

Senior householders as % of all households - 18.3% - 19.7% - 20.4%

% of Owner households headed by a senior - 22.1% - 24.5% - 26.6%

% of Renter households headed by a senior - 11.8% - 12.7% - 12.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 .

While some seniors may prefer to live in single-family detached homes, others desire a smaller, more

affordable home with less upkeep, such as condos, townhouses, apartments, or mobile homes. In general,

most senior households consist of a single elderly person living alone, or a couple. In comparison, among

non-senior households, a smaller percentage of households live alone. This information suggests that

housing developments for senior households should contain larger proportions of smaller housing units

than projects intended for the general population.

Some seniors have the physical and financial ability to continue driving well into their retirement;

however, those who cannot or choose not to drive must rely on alternative forms of transportation. This

includes not only bus routes, rail lines, and ride sharing programs, but also safe, walkable neighborhoods.

In order to accommodate transit access in senior housing, it must be located near transit centers, and in

neighborhoods that cater to pedestrians by providing well-lit, wide, shaded sidewalks, clearly marked

crosswalks, and longer walk signals at intersections.

-




Table 27 shows the housing cost burdens by age and tenure in Manteca, San Joaquin County, and

California based on the 2010 Census and 2008-2010 ACS estimates. As shown in the table, 30.6 percent

of all senior-owner households and 56.6 percent of all senior-renter households in Manteca had a housing

cost burden greater than 30 percent in 2010. The percentage of senior-owner households with a housing

cost burden greater than 30 percent is much lower than the percentage of non-senior households in

Manteca, the county, and the state. However, this trend does not apply to the renter households. About

56.6 percent of senior-renter households have a housing cost burden greater than 30 percent compared to

46.8 percent for non-senior renter households. The percentage of senior owner households with a

moderate housing cost burden in Manteca (30.6 percent) was more than that of San Joaquin County (28.3

percent), and less than that of California (31.5 percent). The percentage of senior renter households with a

moderate cost burden was similar between Manteca (56.6 percent), the county (55.7 percent), and the

state (55.5 percent).

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a needs-based program that pays monthly benefits to persons who

are 65 or older, blind, or have a disability. Seniors who have never worked, or have insufficient work

credits to qualify for Social Security disability, often receive SSI benefits. In fact, SSI is the only source

of income for many low-income seniors. With the maximum monthly benefit of $535 for one person and

$1,070 for couples (2014) in California, SSI recipients are likely to have difficulty finding housing that

fits within their budgets since they could afford to pay only $161 and $321 (or 30 percent of their

income), respectively, for rent. They need to find publicly assisted units with deep subsidies, such as

those at Almond Terrace Senior Apartments, or participate in the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8)

Program. According to Social Security Administration, in 2013 there were 9,389 SSI recipients 65 years

and over in San Joaquin County.

-



Table 27 Housing Cost Burden by Age and Tenure



Total

Cost Burden > 30% Total

Cost Burden > 30% Total

Cost Burden > 30%

# % # % # %

Owner Households

All Householders 13,521 6,179 45.7% 127,270 54,320 42.7% 7,035,371 2,999,985 42.6%

Householder 15-64 years 10,528 5,264 50.0% 96,097 45,513 47.4% 5,164,121 2,410,789 46.7%

Householder > 65 years 2,993 915 30.6% 31,173 8,807 28.3% 1,871,250 589,196 31.5%

Renter Households



Householder > 65 years 959 543 56.6% 11,116 6,196 55.7% 694,699 385,289 55.5%

Total Households



Householder > 65 years 3,952 1,458 36.9% 42,289 15,003 35.5% 2,565,949 974,485 38.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010; ACS 3-year, 2008-2010.

Persons with Disabilities

While there is limited data available on the housing needs of persons with disabilities in Manteca, data on

the number of persons with disabilities and the types of these disabilities is useful in inferring housing

needs. Table 28 shows information from the 2000-2013 ACS estimates on the disability status and types

of disabilities by age group for persons five years and older in Manteca, San Joaquin County, and

California. As shown in the table, 12.2 percent of the total population in Manteca five years and older

had one or more disabilities in 2013, compared to 11.8 percent in San Joaquin County and 10.3 percent in

California. In terms of the four age groups shown in the table, 1.1 percent of the city’s population under 5

years of age, 5.1 percent of the city’s population 5 to 17 years of age, 11.1 percent of city’s population 18

to 64 years of age, and 41.7 percent of the city’s population 65 years and older had one or more

disabilities in 2013.

Table 28 also provides information on the nature of these disabilities. The total number of disabilities

shown for all age groups in Manteca (16,192) exceeds the number of persons with disabilities (8,584)

because a person can have more than one disability. Among school age children, the most frequent

disability was cognitive difficulty (84.2 percent). For persons ages 18 to 64 years, the most frequent

disabilities were ambulatory difficulty (47.8 percent), cognitive difficulty (46.5 percent), and independent

living difficulty (39.3 percent). Finally, for seniors, ambulatory difficulty and independent living

difficulty were the most frequent disabilities (60.4 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively).

-




Although these figures can give a sense of the proportion of the population with different types of

disabilities, a much smaller proportion of the population may actually require specially-adapted housing

to accommodate disabilities, such as people with developmental disabilities.

SB 812, which took effect January 2011, amended State housing element law to require an evaluation of

the special housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. A "developmental disability" is

defined as a disability that originates before an individual becomes 18 years old, continues or can be

expected to continue indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. This includes

mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. Many developmentally disabled persons are able

to live and work rather normally. However, more severely disabled individuals require a group living

environment with supervision, or an institutional environment with medical attention and physical

therapy. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first housing issue for the

developmentally disabled is the transition from living with a parent/guardian as a child to an appropriate

level of independence as an adult.

The Valley Mountain Regional Center (VMRC), located in the City of Stockton, is one of the private,

non-profit corporations that contracts annually with the California State Department of Developmental

Services to provide diagnostic, evaluation, case management, and prevention services to people with

developmental disabilities in the counties of Amador, Calaveras, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne.

Welfare and Institutions Code Section 4519.5 requires regional centers and Department of Developmental

Services to work together to provide information or data about how regional centers buy services for the

communities within their service area.

Table 29 shows the people with developmental disabilities by residence in the city of Manteca. There are

579 Manteca residents with developmental disabilities served by the VMRC. In 2014 VMRC served

11,200 consumers from which 56.5 percent were from San Joaquin County. Living arrangements for this

population include:

96.6 percent of consumers under 18 live with families

74.1 percent of adult consumers live with families or independent or supported living

10.1 percent of children and adults live in community care facilities

0.3 percent of consumers live in a developmental center

-


2-46 Background Report – HCD Review Draft – September 2015

Table 28 Disability Status & Types of Disabilities by Age Group


Manteca San Joaquin California

Total With a disability Total With a disability Total With a disability

Population under 5 years 5,686 63 1.1% 53,509 312 0.6% 2,519,853 18,455 0.7%

With a hearing difficulty - 16 0.3% - 170 0.3% - 12,519 0.5%

With a vision difficulty - 63 1.1% - 221 0.4% - 11,602 0.5%

Population 5 to 17 years 14,766 751 5.1% 145,429 6,432 4.4% 6,674,630 271,266 4.1%

With a hearing difficulty - 42 0.3% - 437 0.3% - 36,125 0.5%

With a vision difficulty - 61 0.4% - 742 0.5% - 50,731 0.8%

With a cognitive difficulty - 632 4.3% - 5,126 3.5% - 191,613 2.9%

With an ambulatory difficulty - 26 0.2% - 710 0.5% - 40,069 0.6%

With a self-care difficulty - 118 0.8% - 1,290 0.9% - 60,592 0.9%

Population 18 to 64 years 42,566 4,707 11.1% 417,572 44,686 10.7% 23,790,341 1,919,004 8.1%

With a hearing difficulty - 1,187 2.8% - 8,386 2.0% - 370,770 1.6%

With a vision difficulty - 605 1.4% - 7,920 1.9% - 360,442 1.5%

With a cognitive difficulty - 2,190 5.1% - 19,615 4.7% - 812,600 3.4%

With an ambulatory difficulty - 2,249 5.3% - 22,944 5.5% - 923,137 3.9%

With a self-care difficulty - 1,023 2.4% - 8,869 2.1% - 381,555 1.6%

With an independent living difficulty - 1,849 4.3% - 17,678 4.2% - 714,586 3.0%

Population 65 years and over 7,343 3,063 41.7% 74,985 30,235 40.3% 4,502,241 1,653,657 36.7%

With a hearing difficulty - 1,120 15.3% - 12,852 17.1% - 661,040 14.7%

With a vision difficulty - 516 7.0% - 6,160 8.2% - 312,266 6.9%

With a cognitive difficulty - 906 12.3% - 8,659 11.5% - 479,126 10.6%

With an ambulatory difficulty - 1,849 25.2% - 19,959 26.6% - 1,079,348 24.0%

With a self-care difficulty - 528 7.2% - 7,864 10.5% - 473,394 10.5%

With an independent living difficulty - 1,212 16.5% - 14,423 19.2% - 821,370 18.2%


-




Table 29 People with Developmental Disabilities by Residence

Manteca 2014

Type of Residence

Age

0-14 15-22 23-54 55-64 65+ Total

Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 288 93 107 4 4 496

Independent /Supported Living 0 3 11 6 3 23

Community Care Facility 1 2 9 5 5 22

Intermediate Care Facility 0 0 19 10 2 31

Foster /Family Home 3 1 3 0 0 7

Other 0 1 2 1 0 4

Total 292 99 149 25 14 579

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, Pre-approved Data Package,

2014.

Housing Needs

Persons with disabilities in Manteca have different housing needs depending on the nature and severity of

the disability. Physically-disabled persons generally require modifications to their housing units such as

wheelchair ramps, elevators or lifts, wide doorways, accessible cabinetry, and modified fixtures and

appliances. If a disability prevents a person from operating a vehicle, then proximity to services and

access to public transportation are particularly important. If a disability prevents an individual from

working or limits income, then the cost of housing and the costs of modifications are likely to be even

more challenging. Those with severe physical or mental disabilities may also require supportive housing,

nursing facilities, or care facilities. In addition, many persons with disabilities rely solely on Social

Security Income, which is insufficient for market rate housing.

A growing number of architects and developers are integrating universal design principles into their

buildings to increase the accessibility of the built environment. The intent of universal design is to

simplify design and construction by making products, communications, and the built environment usable

by as many people as possible without the need for adaptation or specialized design. Applying these

principles, in addition to the regulations specified in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), to new

construction in the city could increase the opportunities in housing and employment for everyone.

Furthermore, studies have shown the access features integrated into the design of new facilities in the

early conceptual stages increase costs less than half of 1 percent in most developments.

-



The following are the seven principles of universal design as outlined by the Center for Universal Design:

Equitable Use - The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.

Flexibility in Use - The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and

abilities.

Simple and Intuitive - Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user’s experience,

knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.

Perceptible Information - The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user,

regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities.

Tolerance for Error - The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental

or unintended action.

Low Physical Effort - The design can be used efficiently and comfortably with minimum fatigue.

Size and Space for Approach and Use - Appropriate size and space is provided for approach,

reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user’s body size, posture, or mobility.

The City has adopted the 2013 California Building Standards Code including Title 24 regulations dealing

with accessibility for persons with disabilities. Newer housing will at least meet minimum standards for

access for persons with disabilities. One of the key needs for persons with disabilities is assistance in

retrofitting older homes.

-




Large Families/Households

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines a large household or family as

one with five or more members. Large families may have specific needs that differ from other families

due to income and housing stock constraints. The most critical housing need of large families is access to

larger housing units with more bedrooms than a standard three-bedroom dwelling. Multi-family rental

housing units typically provide one or two bedrooms and not the three or more bedrooms that are required

by large families. As a result, the large families that are unable to rent single-family houses may be

overcrowded in smaller units. In general, housing for families should provide safe outdoor play areas for

children and should be located to provide convenient access to schools and child-care facilities.

Table 30 below shows the number and share of large households in Manteca, San Joaquin County, and

California in 2010. As shown in the table, 19.4 percent of all households in Manteca had five or more

persons. Of these large households 2,464 were owner-occupied households and 1,720 were renter-

occupied households. The percentage of large owner-occupied households in Manteca (18.2 percent) was

similar to the percentage in San Joaquin County (18.6 percent) and slightly larger than the percentage in

California (16.1 percent). The percentage of large renter-occupied households in the city was smaller than

the percentage in San Joaquin County (23.7 percent) and larger than the percentage in California (16.9

percent).

Table 30 Large Households




Owner-Occupied

Less than 5 Persons 11,057 81.8% 103,557 81.4% 5,904,279 83.9%

5+ Persons 2,464 18.2% 23,713 18.6% 1,131,092 16.1%

TOTAL 13,521 100.0% 127,270 100.0% 7,035,371 100.0%

Renter-Occupied


5+ Persons 1,720 21.2% 20,791 23.7% 935,899 16.9%

TOTAL 8,097 100.0% 87,737 100.0% 5,542,127 100.0%

All Households


5+ Persons 4,184 19.4% 44,504 20.7% 2,066,991 16.4%

TOTAL 21,618 100.0% 215,007 100.0% 12,577,498 100.0%


-



Single-Headed Households with Children

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a single-headed household contains a household head and at least

one dependent, which could include a child, an elderly parent, or non-related child. As shown in Table 31,

there were 2,520 single-headed households with children, comprising 11.7 percent of total households in

Manteca at the time of the 2010 U.S. Census. Nearly 65 percent of these households are single-female

households, which make up 7.6 percent of all households in the city. Single male-headed households

make up approximately 35.0 percent of all single-headed households and 4.1 percent of all households in

the city. The percentage of single-headed households is slightly lower than the county and higher than the

state.

Table 31 Single-Parent Households


Manteca San Joaquin

County California



Single female households with children 1,634 7.6% 18,546 8.6% 856,882 6.8%

Single male households with children 886 4.1% 8,096 3.8% 350,838 2.8%

Total single-headed households with

children 2,520 11.7% 26,642 12.4% 1,207,720 9.6%


Because they generally have only one potential wage earner, single-headed households, and especially

female-headed households, often have more difficulties finding adequate, affordable housing than

families with two adults. Single-headed households with small children may need to pay for childcare,

which further reduces disposable income. This special needs group will benefit generally from expanded

affordable housing opportunities. More specifically, the need for dependent care also makes it important

that housing for single-headed families be located near childcare facilities, schools, youth services, and

medical facilities.

Farmworkers

The city of Manteca does not have housing specifically for farmworkers. The City of Manteca has been

undergoing a transition from agricultural based industries to metropolitan oriented employment for many

decades. This is in part due to the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses, but is due much more to

mechanization of agricultural operations in the area around Manteca. According to the 2011-2013

American Community Survey, 510 people were employed in the Agriculture, Foresty, Fishing, Hunting,

and Mining industry in Manteca, which is about 1.8 percent of the employed population age 16 years and

over. The demand for substantial numbers of transient farm laborers has evolved to a much more stable

workforce that remains in residence. The need for seasonal housing has evolved to a need for year-round

housing that is undifferentiated from the other housing demands in the city. Based on the U.S. Census

-




estimate, the need for farmworker housing is being met through the City’s other housing programs for

lower-income households.

While the City of Manteca does not have housing specifically for farmworkers, the San Joaquin County

Housing Authority operates two migrant centers near Manteca under contract to the State. These two

centers, Joseph J. Artesi Migrant Center II and Joseph J. Artesi Migrant Center III are located on French

Camp Road approximately five miles from the current Manteca city boundary. During the off-season, one

of the French Camp facilities is made available to the homeless (from mid-December through mid-

March). The migrant centers serve 285 farm worker families each year from May 1 to October 31. Each

unit provides two, three, or four bedrooms, a kitchen, and a dining area.

The Employee Housing Act requires jurisdictions to permit employee housing for six or fewer employees

as a single family use. HCD also indicates that employee housing shall not be included within the zoning

definition of a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or other similar term that implies that the

employee housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling.

Jurisdictions cannot impose a conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance of

employee housing that serves six or fewer employees that are not required of a family dwelling of the

same type in the same zone. Additinally in any zone where agriculture is a permitted or allowed by a

conditional use permit, employee housing containing up to 36 beds and 12 units must be treated as an

agricultural use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required

for this type of employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone.

The City fully complies with the State Employee Housing Act. Manteca’s Municipal Code identifies two

types of employee housing, large and small. Large employee housing serves more than six employees and

consists of no more than 36 beds in group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single

family or household, while small employee housing is housing that serves six or fewer employees. Large

employee housing is allowed by right in the Agricultural zoning district (A), while Small employee

housing is allowed by right in the Agricultural zoning district (A) as well as R-E, R-1, R-2, R-3, and

CMU zones, which are zones that allow single-family dwellings either by right or with a minor use

permit.

Homeless Persons

Homelessness continues as a regional and national issue. Services and facilities available for the

homeless are coordinated in Manteca and San Joaquin County as a continuum of care. The continuum of

care begins with a point of entry in which the needs of a homeless individual or family are assessed.

Once a needs assessment is completed, the person or family may be referred to permanent housing or to

transitional housing where supportive services are provided to prepare them for independent living. The

goal of a comprehensive homeless service system is to ensure that homeless individuals and families

move from homelessness to self-sufficiency, permanent housing, and independent living.

Factors contributing to the rise in homelessness include the general lack of housing affordable to lower-

income persons, increases in the number of persons whose incomes fall below the poverty level,

reductions in public subsidies to the poor, alcohol and substance abuse, and the de-institutionalization of

the mentally ill.

-



In San Joaquin County the approach to housing the homeless and maximizing delivery of services

involves regional coordination and cooperation. The delivery of services is organized by County agencies

and is supported by the City of Manteca. By sharing resources regionally, the cost of operation and the

delivery of services are more effective. The homeless consortium is comprised of representatives from all

the homeless shelters and service providers in San Joaquin County. This consortium also includes

representatives from the County Community Development Department, Office of Substance Abuse, and

Mental Health Services. The consortium works cooperatively to eliminate duplication of services and to

increase service and shelter efficiencies. Also, the County’s Community Development Department, also

oversees the County’s Continuum of Care. The San Joaquin County Neighborhood Preservation Division

manages several Supportive Housing Programs (SHP) and a Shelter Plus Care (SPC) Program through

local non-profit service providers. These programs provide rent, education, budgeting, and job search

assistance to homeless individuals and families. Additionally the HOPE Family Shelter located in

Manteca served an estimated 103 families in 2014.

-




Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing

In San Joaquin County the homeless are provided emergency shelter primarily in the cities of Stockton,

Lodi, Tracy, and Manteca (see Table 32). HOPE Ministries operates one homeless shelter in Manteca:

HOPE Family Shelter. The HOPE Family Shelter, which was opened in 1993, houses homeless families

and has the capacity for about 35 people. The city does not have a homeless shelter to serve homeless

individuals. Some of the other major shelter providers, most of which are in Stockton, are the Stockton

Shelters for the Homeless, the Gospel Center’s Rescue Mission and the Women’s Center facilities. Efforts

are also being made to find additional shelter space.

Table 32 Overnight and Emergency Facilities


Facility/Provider Location Description

Escalon Food and

Shelter Escalon Emergency shelter for women with children and single women

Gospel Center, Rescue

Mission Stockton Emergency shelter for women with children and single women

Gospel Center, Rescue

Mission Stockton Emergency shelter for single men

Haven of Peace French Camp Emergency shelter for women with children and single women

HOPE Family Shelter Manteca Emergency shelter for single and two-parent families

Interfaith Ministries Ripon Emergency shelter for women with children

Lodi House Lodi Emergency shelter for women and children, and single women

Lodi Community

Service Center Lodi Shelter for women and children

McHenry House Tracy Emergency shelter for single and two-parent families, and

single women

Salvation Army,

Archway Shelter Lodi Women and children, and single women and men

St. Mary’s Interfaith

Community Services Stockton Emergency shelter for women and children

Stockton Shelter for

the Homeless Stockton Emergency shelter for single men


Homeless Families Stockton Emergency shelter for families

Women’s Center,

Safe House Stockton Shelter for abused women.

Women’s Center,

Opportunity House Stockton Shelter for abused women and their children.

Women’s Center,

Dawn House Stockton Shelter for abused women and their children.

Source: Central Valley Low-Income Housing Corporation, 2015.

-



Transitional Housing

For many, transitional housing, long-term rental assistance, and/or greater availability of low-income

rental units are also needed. Transitional housing is usually in buildings configured as rental housing

developments, but operated with State programs that require the unit to be cycled to other eligible

program recipients after some pre-determined amount of time. Supportive housing has no limit on length

of stay and is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the resident in retaining the housing, improving

his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the

community.

Transitional housing programs provide extended shelter and supportive services for homeless individuals

and/or families with the goal of helping them live independently and transition into permanent housing.

Some programs require that the individual/family be transitioning from a short-term emergency shelter.

The length of stay varies considerably by program, but is generally longer than two weeks and can last up

to 60 days or more. In many cases, transitional housing programs will provide services for up to two years

or more. The supportive services may be provided directly by the organization managing the housing or

by other public or private agencies in a coordinated effort with the housing provider. Transitional housing

is generally provided in apartment style facilities with a higher degree of privacy than short-term

homeless shelters, may be provided at no cost to the resident, and may be configured for specialized

groups within the homeless population such as people with substance abuse problems, homeless mentally

ill, homeless domestic violence victims, veterans or homeless people with AIDS/HIV.

HOPE Ministries operates a transitional housing facility called the Building HOPE Center. The eight-unit

transitional housing apartment complex allows families to stay for up to two years while paying fixed rent

(30 percent of family income) and receiving employment assistance.

In addition to the Building HOPE Center housing facility, there are several other transitional or supportive

housing programs offered throughout San Joaquin County. As shown in Table 33, transitional/supportive

housing programs are being provided by the Gospel Center Rescue Mission, the McHenry House, New

Direction, Lutheran Social Services, and the Central Valley Low Income Housing Corporation

(CVLIHC).

Table 34 summarizes homeless facilities and services available in all of San Joaquin County, the bed

capacity, and the characteristics of clients they serve. While the shelter facilities in Manteca only serve

homeless families, the majority of facilities in the county serve unaccompanied males and females, adult

couples without children, and single-parent and two-parent families. Family and Youth Services of San

Joaquin County Opportunity House is the only shelter that specifies services for unaccompanied youth

under 18.

-




Table 33 Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing


Facility/Provider Description

Central Valley Low

Income Housing

Corporation

(CVLIHC)

CVLIHC provides supportive housing and services primarily for

homeless families. CVLIHC operates a scattered site program with

participants having the primary responsibility for the units where they

live.

Dignity’s Alcove Transitional Housing shelter for individuals without children.

Family and Youth

Services of San

Joaquin County

Opportunity House provides a program designed to help older,

homeless youth achieve self-sufficiency and avoid long-term

dependency on social services. The program serves eight individuals

and their children.

Gospel Center

Rescue Mission

(GCRM)

GCRM offers the New Hope Plus Program, a transitional housing

phase, in which six clients live together while seeking employment,

paying room and board, and saving funds to become re-established in

the community. In addition, GCRM offers a supportive housing

program that provides scattered site housing and supportive services

to homeless families.

Holman House The Holman House is a Transitional Housing facility located in

Stockton.

Housing Authority of

San Joaquin County

The Housing Authority, in partnership with the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development, operates Permanent Supportive

Housing facilities at scattered sites throughout the county.

Lutheran Social

Services

Lutheran Social Services’ Project HOPE program provides

permanent supportive housing for homeless and disabled youth.

New Directions

New Directions provides housing and supportive services for

homeless men and women who have had contact with the criminal

justice system because of their drug/alcohol addiction.

San Joaquin AIDS

Foundation

The San Joaquin AIDS foundation operates three transitional housing

sites, Edan House, Hunter house, and Coral house.

Shelter Plus Care

Programs

The Shelter Plus Care Program provides rental assistance for

homeless persons with disabilities in association with supportive

services. The County currently (2015) has two Shelter Plus Care

programs. Supportive services available to participants include case

management, substance abuse and mental health treatment, health

services, and educational assistance.

Supportive Housing

Programs

The Supportive Housing Programs promote the development of

supportive housing and services that help the homeless transition to

independent living. Source: Central Valley Low-Income Housing Corporation, 2015.

-



Table 34 Emergency and Transitional Shelter Provider Capacities

San Joaquin County 2013-2014

Facility Name Location Homeless

Beneficiaries Bed

Capacity

Annual Served

Residential Non-Residential

CVLIHC Stockton

UM

UW

SPF

TPF

N/A 91 0

Gospel Center

Rescue Mission Stockton

UM

UW

SPF

100 196 0

Haven of Peace French Camp UW

SPF 46 602

HOPE Family

Shelter Manteca

SPF

TPF 71 209 0

Lodi House Lodi

SPF

AC

UW

36 68 45

McHenry House for

the Homeless Tracy

UM

UW

SPF

TPF

38 418 357

Salvation Army

Hope Harbor Lodi

UM

UW

SPF

AC

82 421 850

St. Mary’s Interfaith

Dining Room Stockton

UM

UW

SPF

TPF

AC

N/A 539,626 0


the Homeless Stockton

UM

UW

SPF

TPF

AC

306

220 (Winter) 2,176 0

Tender Hands Safe

Haven Stockton

UW

SPF 20 102 0

Women’s Center of

San Joaquin County Stockton

UW

SPF

AC

UFY

SPY

58 391 0

Key

AC-Adult Couples without Children UW-Unaccompanied Females

SPF-Single Parent Families UNM-Unaccompanied Males

TPF-Two Parent Families UFY-Unaccompanied Female Youth Under 18

SPY-Single Parent Youth UMY-Unaccompanied Male Youth Under 18 Source: San Joaquin County Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, 2013-2014.

-




Extremely Low-Income Households

Extremely low-income (ELI) households are defined as those households with incomes under 30 percent

of the area median income. Extremely low-income households typically consist of minimum wage

workers, seniors on fixed incomes, the disabled, and farmworkers. This income group is likely to live in

overcrowded and substandard housing conditions. This group of households has specific housing needs

that require greater government subsidies and assistance, housing with supportive services, single room

occupancy (SRO) and or shared housing, and/or rental subsidies or vouchers. In recent years rising rents,

higher income and credit standards imposed by landlords, and insufficient government assistance has

exacerbated the problem. Without adequate assistance this group has a high risk of homelessness.

In Manteca a household of three persons with an income of $17,950 in 2014 would qualify as an

extremely low-income household. Table 35 shows the number of extremely low-income households and

their housing cost burden in Manteca, San Joaquin County, and California in 2011. As shown in the table,

Manteca had a lower percentage (5.9 percent) of extremely low-income households than San Joaquin

County (9.7 percent) and the State (14.3 percent). Following the statewide and countywide trends, the

city had a larger proportion of extremely low-income renter households (9.4 percent) and a smaller

proportion of extremely low-income owner households (3.8 percent). In Manteca 83.1 percent of

extremely low-income households had a moderate housing cost burden and 75.7 percent had a severe

housing cost burden. This was slightly higher than the cost burdens of extremely low-income households

in the state. Extremely low-income renters had a much lower incidence of housing cost burden than

owners in Manteca–78.1 percent of extremely low-income renters had a moderate cost burden compared

to 90.4 percent of owners, and 74.2 percent of renters had a severe cost burden compared to 77.9 percent

of owners.

Table 35 Housing Cost Burden of Extremely Low-Income Households



Owners Renters Total Owners Renters Total Owners Renters Total

Number of ELI

households 520 755 1,275 5,765 15,030 20,795 485,410 1,292,900 1,778,310

Number of total

households 13,689 8,007 21,696 126,798 87,169 213,967 6,929,055 5,503,994 12,433,049

% of total households 3.8% 9.4% 5.9% 4.5% 17.2% 9.7% 7.0% 23.5% 14.3%

Number w/ cost

burden > 30% 470 590 1,060 4,260 12,485 16,745 356,690 1,050,190 1,406,880

% w/ cost burden

> 30% 90.4% 78.1% 83.1% 73.9% 83.1% 80.5% 73.5% 81.2% 79.1%

Number w/ cost

burden > 50% 405 560 965 3,500 11,500 15,000 295,550 896,665 1,192,215

% w/ Cost Burden >

50% 77.9% 74.2% 75.7% 60.7% 76.5% 72.1% 60.9% 69.4% 67.0%

Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Database, 2007-2011; ACS 3-year, 2009-2011.

-



Government Code Section 65583(a)(1) states:

―Local agencies shall calculate the subset of very low-income households allotted under Section

65584 that qualify as extremely low-income households. The local agency may either use

available census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income households that qualify as

extremely low-income households or presume that 50 percent of the very low-income households

qualify as extremely low-income households. The number of extremely low-income households

and very low-income households shall equal the jurisdiction's allocation of very low-income

households pursuant to Section 65584.‖

Based on Manteca’s 2014-2023 regional housing needs allocation, there is a projected need for 459

extremely low-income housing units (which assumes 50 percent of the very low-income allocation)

within the city.

Workforce Housing Needs

Workforce housing is a relatively new term that is gaining popularity with government officials, planners,

and housing advocates. Workforce housing can refer to almost any housing, but typically to affordable

housing. The actual definition of workforce housing depends on the specific needs and the specific

market characteristics of a community. In Manteca, there is a recognized need for workforce housing, but

there is also a need to define exactly what the term workforce housing means in the context of this

Housing Element. In general, workforce housing refers to housing that is affordable to working

households that do not qualify for publicly subsidized housing, and cannot afford market-rate housing in

their own community. Generally, workforce housing programs are targeted to residents earning between

80 and 120 percent of the area median income; however, depending on local market conditions, the

income criteria may need to be adjusted.

The workforce includes vital workers such as police officers, fire fighters, teachers, nurses, sales clerks,

postal workers, bank tellers, truck drivers, and carpenters. These workers provide essential services to the

community, yet often struggle to find safe, affordable homes in the community in which they work. The

housing needed for these workers is most likely for-purchase attached and detached single-family homes

and condominiums. A teacher in Manteca earning around $50,000 can afford to spend no more than

$213,000 to purchase a home at a 30-year fixed mortgage rate with an annual interest rate of 3.9 percent.

Even with the recent drop in home prices, a teacher earning this moderate income would have difficulty

purchasing a home in Manteca and would not qualify for many of the housing programs which target

lower-income households.

II. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS HCD is required to allocate the region’s share of the statewide housing need to Councils of Governments

(COG) based on Department of Finance population projections and regional population forecasts used in

preparing regional transportation plans. The COG develops a Regional Housing Need Plan (RHNP)

allocating the region’s share of the statewide need to cities and counties within the region. The RHNP

should promote the following objectives: increase the housing supply and the mix of housing types,

tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner; promote infill

development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and

-




the encouragement of efficient development patterns; and promote an improved intraregional relationship

between jobs and housing.

Housing element law recognizes the most critical decisions regarding housing development occur at the

local level within the context of the periodically updated general plan. The RHNP component of the

general plan requires local governments to balance the need for growth, including the need for additional

housing, against other competing local interests. The RHNP process of housing element law promotes the

State’s interest in encouraging open markets and providing opportunities for the private sector to address

the State’s housing demand, while leaving the ultimate decision about how and where to plan for growth

at the regional and local levels. The process maintains local control over where and what type of

development should occur in local communities while providing an opportunity for the private sector to

meet market demand. While land-use planning is fundamentally a local issue, the availability of housing

is a matter of statewide importance. The RHNP process requires local governments to be accountable for

ensuring that projected housing needs can be accommodated and provides a benchmark for evaluating the

adequacy of local zoning and regulatory actions to ensure each local government is providing sufficient

appropriately designated land and opportunities for housing development to address population growth

and job generation.

A. Regional Housing Needs Allocation

Housing element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need as

established in the RHNP prepared by the COG. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a

minimum projection of additional housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth of

all income levels by the end of the housing element’s statutory planning period. Each locality’s RHNA is

distributed among four income categories to address the required provision for planning for all income

levels.

This section evaluates projected future housing needs in the city of Manteca based on the adopted

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) prepared by the San Joaquin Council of Governments

(SJCOG). State law requires councils of government to prepare allocation plans for all cities and counties

within their jurisdiction. SJCOG adopted its Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan on August 28,

2014.

The intent of a housing allocation plan is to ensure adequate housing opportunities for all income groups.

The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provides guidelines for

preparation of the plans, and ultimately certifies the plans as adequate. The methodology used to

determine the future need considers the growth in number of households expected to achieve ideal

vacancy rates, the need for more housing opportunities, and compensation for anticipated demolition.

SJCOG’s methodology is based on the regional numbers supplied by the California Department of

Housing and Community Development (HCD). The numbers produced by HCD were provided to SJCOG

in the form of a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) broken down by income categories (i.e.,

very low-, low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income). SJCOG allocates a ―fair share‖ by income

category based on projected housing need for each jurisdiction in San Joaquin County. Each jurisdiction

is required to report to HCD how the fair share allocation can be accommodated within the planning

-



period. The allocations are intended to be used by jurisdictions when updating their housing elements as

the basis for assuring that adequate sites and zoning are available to accommodate at least the number of

units allocated. Table 36 below shows the projected housing needs for the planning period from January

1, 2014, to December 31, 2023, for the city of Manteca.

Table 36 Regional Housing Needs Allocation by Income

Manteca January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2023

Extremely

Low1

Very Low Low Moderate

Above Moderate TOTAL

Average Yearly Need

2

RHNA 459 466 693 825 1,958 4,401 550

Percent of Total 10.4% 10.6% 15.7% 18.7% 44.5% 100% -

Note: 1Extremely Low allocation is equal to 50 percent of the Very Low allocation (850) 2Based on a 8 -year planning period

Source: San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Final RHNA

Methodology (August 28, 2008).

As shown in the table, SJCOG allocated 4,401 new housing units to the city of Manteca for the January 1,

2014, to December 31, 2023, planning period. The allocation is equivalent to a yearly need of

approximately 550 housing units for the 8-year time period. Of the 4,401 housing units, 2,443 units are to

be affordable to moderate-income households and below, including 459 extremely low-income units, 466

very low-income units, 693 low-income units, and 825 moderate-income units. Countywide the total

housing need is 40,360 new units, of which the city of Manteca received 11 percent.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) allows jurisdictions to count

four types of credits toward meeting their Regional Housing Needs allocation:

Actual Production. Jurisdictions can count the number of new units built and occupied during the

planning period of 2014-2023 toward their RHNA.

Rehabilitation of Units. Under State law, cities can count up to 25 percent of their RHNA for the

rehabilitation of qualified substandard units that would otherwise be demolished.

Preservation of Affordable Units. AB 438 (2002) authorizes jurisdictions to count a portion of

the affordable units that would otherwise revert to market rents but are preserved through

committed assistance from the jurisdiction.

Available Land for Development. Cities may also count potential housing production on suitable

vacant and underutilized sites within the community.

The following section shows how the City of Manteca will provide for a sufficient number of sites to

facilitate housing production commensurate with the 2014-2023 RHNA based on current housing

production trends and an inventory of suitable vacant and underutilized sites within the city.

-




B. Comparison of Housing Unit Production with Projected Housing Needs

One of the Housing Element’s main goals is to ensure that a variety of housing opportunities at a range of

prices and rents are made available to residents. This includes, but not limited to, conventional single-

family homes, multi-family apartments, town homes, and housing for special needs groups. Since the

Housing Element planning period runs from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2023, Manteca’s Regional

Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) can be reduced by the number of new units built or approved since

January 1, 2014. The City staff and the Consultants compiled an inventory of all residential projects that

have been constructed since the start of the current Housing Element planning period (January 1, 2014),

are under construction or currently have entitlements during the Housing Element planning period. Table

37 shows an inventory of these projects within Manteca including name of the development, number of

units, number of affordable units (by very low-, low-, and moderate-income categories), project status,

and additional notes.

As shown in the table, there are a total of 8,582 planned, approved and built units. More specifically,

there are 40 low-income units, and 8,542 above-moderate units.

-



Table 37 Units Approved, Built, and Under Construction

Manteca January 1, 2014 to July 31, 2015

Project Date

Approved

Unbuilt Vacant

SF Lots/ MF Units

Units Counted Against RHNA By Income

Comments Very Low Low Mod

Above Mod

P-01 Alma Place N/A 184 184 Needs site plan approval, but is anticipated to be

approved within the planning period

P-02

Atherton Homes @Woodward

Park 1 05/05/2015 171

171

Application date: 4/3/14. Approved by City.

Annexation Required. Waiting for Notice of

Completion from Board of Equalization to finalize

annexation.

Atherton Homes @ Woodward

Park 2 05/05/2015 185

185

Application date: 4/3/14. Approved by City.

Annexation Required. Waiting for Notice of

Completion from Board of Equalization to finalize

annexation.

P-03 Blossom Grove (Silva Estates) 08/19/2014 91 91 Finished Lot (Approved Final Map, Ready To Build)

P-04 Clearwater Creek 12/16/2014 34 34 Finished Lot (Approved Final Map, Ready To Build)

P-05 Copper Cove (part of Yosemite

Square Master Plan) 11/05/2013 342 342

Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

P-06 Crivello Estates

04/17/2015 62 62

Crivello Estates: Remaining entitled lots (Approved

Tentative Map, Pending Final Map);

Crivello Estates Unit 1: Finished Lot (Approved

Final Map, Ready To Build)

P-07 DeJong Estates N/A 343

343

Application date: 5/28/15. Annexation Required.

Will be presented to PC in August and CC in

September 2015.

P-08 Diego Country Estates 10/20/2009 24 24 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

P-09 Dutra Estates Unit 4 06/4/2007 3 3 Finished Lot (Approved Final Map, Ready To Build)

Dutra Estates Unit 5 11/19/2013 49 49 Finished Lot (Approved Final Map, Ready To Build)

P-10 Evans Estates 02/02/2010 586 586 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

P-11 Hat Ranch N/A 800

800

Application date: 5/8/13. Project on hold due to

issues with the Water Supply Assessment.

Annexation Required.

-






Project Date

Approved

Unbuilt Vacant

SF Lots/ MF Units



Above Mod

P-12 Juniper Apartments (formerly

Tesoro Apartments) 08/18/2008 153 153

Finished Apartment Units (Approved Site Plan,

Ready to Build)

P-13 Lundbom Estates 08/07/2006 18 18 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

P-14 Milner Terrace 03/18/2014 76 76 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

P-15 Monte Bello Estates 07/15/2014 109 109 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

P-16 Oakwood Trails N/A 578

578

Application date: 10/31/13. Will go to PC for

recommendation to CC in the September or October

2015.

P-17

Oleander Estates 10/19/2010 305 305 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

Oleander Estates Unit 2 11/19/2013 51 51 Finished Lot (Approved Final Map, Ready To Build)

Oleander Estates Unit 1 12/17/2013 63 63 Finished Lot (Approved Final Map, Ready To Build)

P-18

Pillsbury Estates Unit 1 03/05/2013 3 3 Finished Lot (Approved Final Map, Ready To Build)




P-19 Senior Housing Complex N/A 48

48

Application date: 4/24/15. In process. Applying for

tax credits in March 2016.

P-20 Shadowbrook 12/19/2005 497 497 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

P-21 Sundance Project 05/05/2015 514 514 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

P-22 Terra Bella 12/05/2005 15 15 Finished Lot (Approved Final Map, Ready To Build)

P-23

Terra Ranch 06/21/2011 212 212 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

Terra Ranch Apartments 08/11/2015 200 200 Finished Apartment Units (Approved Site Plan,

Ready to Build)

-





Project Date

Approved

Unbuilt Vacant

SF Lots/ MF Units



Above Mod

P-24 Tesoro Park 10/21/2014 25 25 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

P-25 Trails of Manteca 02/15/2011 1,370 1,370 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

P-26

Union Ranch 08/01/2005 427 427 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

Union Ranch Units 1-3(Pulte) 12/18/2012 15 15 Finished Lot (Approved Final Map, Ready To Build)

Union Ranch Unit 7 (Pulte) 04/23/2013 7 7 Finished Lot (Approved Final Map, Ready To Build)

Union Ranch Unit 6 (Pulte) 10/20/2014 113 113 Finished Lot (Approved Final Map, Ready To Build)

Union Ranch East 1-4 11/6/2012 2 2 Finished Lot (Approved Final Map, Ready To Build)

P-27 Villa Capri Apartments N/A 10 10 Needs site plan approval, but is anticipated to be


P-28 Villa Ticino West 07/21/2015 760 760 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

P-29 Vista Verde Apartments N/A 19 19 Needs site plan approval, but is anticipated to be


P-30 Winters Colonial Estates 10/20/2009 40 40 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

P-31 Woodbridge Apartments 12/09/2014 172 172 Finished Apartment Units (Approved Site Plan,

Ready to Build)

P-32 Woodward Estates 02/18/2014 72 72 Entitled Lots (Approved Tentative Map, Pending

Final Map)

TOTAL UNITS 8,590 0 48 0 8,542

Source: City of Manteca Community Development Department, 2015.

-




1. Remaining Need

Based on the information on approved and built projects presented in Table 37, the remaining housing

need was calculated. Table 38 shows the City’s remaining RHNA based on income category and the need

that has already been satisfied during the Housing Element period (i.e., January 1, 2014 to December 31,

2023) by built and approved units.

The number of units that need to be satisfied by 2023 vary by income category. All of the above-moderate

income RHNA is satisfied by units that have been approved or built. The lower-income and moderate-

income categories have a remaining need of 2,395 units.

Table 38 Remaining Need Based on Built and Approved Units


Income Category RHNA

Approved, Built, and Under

Construction Remaining Units

Needed

Extremely Low 459 0 459

Very Low 466 0 466

Low 693 48 645

Moderate 825 0 825

Above Moderate 1,958 8,542 0

TOTAL 4,401 8,582 2,395 Source: Manteca Community Development Department; Mintier Harnish, 2015.

III. RESOURCE INVENTORY This section analyzes the resources and opportunities available for the development, rehabilitation, and

preservation of affordable housing in the city of Manteca. Included is an evaluation of the availability of

land resources and the financial administrative resources available to support housing activities.

A. Availability of Land and Services

The State law governing the preparation of Housing Elements emphasizes the importance of an adequate

land supply by requiring that each Housing Element contain ―an inventory of land suitable for residential

development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the

relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites‖ (Government Code Section

65583(a)(3)).

This section provides an inventory of the vacant land that is suitable and available within the city of

Manteca for residential development. It compares this inventory to the City’s remaining RHNA. In

addition to this assessment, this section considers the availability of sites to accommodate a variety of

housing types suitable for households with a range of income levels and housing needs. Finally, this

-



section discusses the adequacy of public facilities, services, and infrastructure for residential development

during the Housing Element planning period.

1. Residential Sites Inventory

The residential land inventory is required ―to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the

planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need

for all income levels‖ (Government Code Section 65583.2(a)). The phrase ―land suitable for residential

development‖ in Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) includes all of the following:

Vacant sites zoned for residential use;

Vacant sites zoned for non-residential use that allows residential development;

Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density; and

Sites zoned for non-residential use that can be redeveloped for, and as necessary, rezoned for,

residential use.

The inventory is required to include the following (Government Code Section 65583.2(b)):

A listing of properties by parcel number or other unique reference;

The size of each property listed and the general plan designation and zoning of each property;

For non-vacant sites, a description of the existing use of each property;

A general description of any environmental constraints to the development of housing within the

jurisdiction, the documentation for which has been made available to the jurisdiction. This

information need not be identified on a site-specific basis.

A general description of existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply, including

the availability and access to distribution facilities. This information need not be identified on a

site-specific basis.

Sites identified as available for housing for above-moderate income households in areas not

served by public sewer systems. This information need not be identified on a site-specific basis.

A map that shows the location of the sites included in the inventory, such as the land use map

from the jurisdiction’s general plan for reference purposes only.

-




In order to calculate the number of units that will accommodate its share of the regional housing need for

lower-income households, a jurisdiction is required to do either of the following (Government Code

Section 65583.2(c)(3)):

Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this need. The

analysis shall include, but is not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility,

or information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide

housing for lower-income households.

Use the ―default density standards‖ that are ―deemed appropriate‖ in State law to accommodate

housing for lower-income households given the type of the jurisdiction. The City of Manteca is

classified as a ―suburban jurisdiction‖ and the density standard is defined as ―sites allowing at

least 20 units per acre.‖ HCD is required to accept sites that meet this density standard as

appropriate for accommodating Manteca’s share of the regional housing need for lower-income

households.

Vacant Land

Methodology

In accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2 described above, an

assessment was conducted of the vacant land suitable for residential development within the city of

Manteca. The data was compiled by City staff and the Consultants and mapped using a Geographic

Information System (GIS). The following criteria were used to map vacant residential sites:

Location: all parcels within Manteca city limits.

Vacancy: vacant parcels were initially selected based on the County Assessor’s use codes in the

parcel database. Vacancy status was verified through aerial photographs and field observation.

Since the Assessor’s use codes are not completely accurate for all parcels, the vacant parcel list

was supplemented with additional entries from City staff.

General Plan land use designations: only parcels with the following land use designations that

allow for residential development were retained in the inventory (see also Table 42: General Plan

Land Use Designations Allowing Residential Uses):

Very Low Density Residential (VLDR)

Low Density Residential (LDR)

Medium Density Residential (MDR)

High Density Residential (HDR)

Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)

-



Zoning districts: only parcels with the following zoning districts that allow for residential

development were retained in the inventory (see also Table 43: Residential Zoning Districts):

Residential Estate District (RE)

One-Family Dwelling (R-1)

Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling (R-2)

Multiple-Family Dwelling (R-3)

Master Plan (MP)

Mixed Use Commercial (CMU)

Central Business District (CBD)

Size: All vacant residentially-zoned parcels were inventoried; however, only parcels larger than

0.5 acres are identified in this Housing Element inventory, based on the assumption that parcels

smaller than this size would not be economically feasible for developing affordable housing.

However, an exception was made for small infill parcels located in the downtown area where

infrastructure is in place to support development of smaller parcels and where the City is

prioritizing redevelopment efforts. When parcels had an appropriate land use designation or

zoning that only covered a part of the parcel, only the parts of parcels allowing for multi-family

residential development were included in the inventory.

All parcels (or portions of parcels) that met the criteria above were reviewed by City staff to

confirm vacancy status, ownership, adequacy of public utilities and services, possible

environmental constraints such as flood zones and steep slopes, and other possible constraints to

development feasibility.

-




The following assumptions were made in the inventory:

Type of sites. All of the sites in the inventory are vacant sites zoned for residential use

and meet the classification in State law (Government Code Section 65583.2(a)) as ―land

suitable for residential development.‖

Relation of density to income categories. The following assumptions were used to determine

the inventoried income categories according to the maximum allowed density for each site:

Lower-Income. Sites with a land use designation/zoning district combination with a

maximum allowable density of 25 units per acre were inventoried as available for

extremely low-, very low-, and low-income residential development in accordance with

the ―default density standard‖ set forth in Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3).

These sites are located in areas with High Density Residential (HDR) and Commercial

Mixed Use (CMU) land use designations.

Moderate Income. Sites with a land use designation/zoning district combination with a

maximum allowable density of 15 units per acre were inventoried as available for

moderate-income residential development. All of the sites in this category allow for a

maximum development density of 15 units per acre without a density bonus based on the

Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation. Based on existing

developments in the city of Manteca, these densities are adequate to provide for the

provision of moderate-income housing.

All other sites were inventoried as above moderate-income units

-



Inventoried affordable units by category. While the maximum allowed residential density was

used to determine the income categories of the inventoried sites, the inventory uses the following

assumptions about realistic unit buildout capacity for the sites.

Buildout Capacity. The vacant land inventory assumes that development will occur at

80 percent of maximum buildout capacity on land designated for residential uses and 25

percent of maximum buildout capacity on land designated for commercial mixed-use,

unless otherwise noted. (Note: the Land Use Chapter of the General Plan supports at least

35 percent residential uses in CMU areas. 10

) For example, a one-acre vacant site that is

designated as residential with a maximum density of 25 units per acre and no density

bonus is inventoried with a development capacity of 20 units. A one-acre vacant site

designated for commercial mixed-use with a maximum density of 25 units per acre is

inventoried with a development capacity of 6 units per acre. Many of the CMU-

designated sites located along Yosemite Avenue, Main Street, and Airport Way are

inventoried at 50 percent of capacity since there are policies in the General Plan Land

Use Element that support these sites developing as 100 percent residential.

Environmental Constraints. The Consultants reviewed all parcels (or portions of

parcels) that met the criteria above for any possible environmental constraints such as

flood zones, steep slopes, and other possible constraints to development feasibility. None

of the sites included in the inventory have any known environmental constraints that

would limit or prohibit development of the site.

Table A-1 and Figure A-1 (in Appendix A) show the inventory of vacant residential sites within the city

of Manteca with development potential for lower- and moderate-income housing. The effective inventory

date is July 2015, and the status of the parcel as of that date is used for inventory purposes. For each site

the table shows the Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) (APN), City of Manteca General Plan land use

designation, zoning district, size, maximum allowable residential density based on the land use

designation and zoning, number of inventoried units, inventoried unit income level (by very low-, low-,

and moderate-income categories), and additional notes.

As shown in Tables A-1 and A-2, Manteca has a total inventoried capacity of 4,292 lower-income (very

low- and low-income) units (3,179 units on vacant land and 1,113 units on underutilized land) and 1,490

moderate-income units (942 units on vacant land and 548 units on underutilized land). The City has

additional vacant land designated LDR and zoned R1, RE, PD11

, and PEC. However, due to the many

market-rate approved projects, these units are not relied upon to meet the above moderate-income RHNA.

10

The Land Use Chapter of the General Plan contains the following description of commercial mixed use:

―Commercial Mixed Use developments in the new urbanizing areas of the city may also develop primarily as multi-

family residential, but are also intended to provide a commercial and office component designed to serve the

surrounding neighborhood. In new urbanizing areas the mixed-use concept would accommodate approximately 35%

of the land area allocated to High-Density Residential use, however, individual sites may be permitted to have

significantly higher percentages of residential.‖ 11

PEC zone only exists on the zoning map. There is no corresponding section in the Zoning Title.

-




Underutilized Land

The City is considering infill and redevelopment potential on several underutilized sites that can

accommodate high-density residential uses. The Consultants and City staff produced an inventory of

underutilized sites that are either mostly vacant or are developed but economically underutilized with

low-value uses. The sites that were determined to have short-term potential are inventoried in Table A-2.

These sites are likely candidates for redevelopment within the Housing Element planning period. Other

sites were determined to have infill or redevelopment potential, but because of their existing uses, were

not considered viable sites for redevelopment within the timeframe of this Housing Element. Sites with

long-term redevelopment/infill potential are shown in Table A-3.

Based on the analysis of underutilized sites, the Consultants and City staff determined that there is

capacity for an additional 1,113 lower-income units on underutilized sites designated for higher-density

residential and commercial mixed-use. There is capacity for 548 moderate-income units on underutilized

sites designated for medium-density residential uses (see Table A-2).

2. Total Residential Holding Capacity vs. Projected Needs by Housing Type and Income Group

Table 39 below provides a summary of residential holding capacity in the city of Manteca compared to its

share of the regional housing need as assigned in the RHNA. The figures for the RHNA allocation are

from Table 36. The figures for built and planned projects are from Table 37. The figures for residential

holding capacity on vacant land are from Table A-1 and the holding capacity on underutilized land is

from Table A-2.

As shown in the table, Manteca has a total residential capacity (5,782) in excess of its remaining RHNA

for all units. Additionally, Manteca has sufficient residential capacity (4,292) in excess of its remaining

RHNA for lower-income units (1,570). Manteca has adequate capacity compared to the RHNA in each of

the income categories.

-



Table 39 Residential Holding Capacity Compared to RHNA by Income

Manteca January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2023

Lower-

Income1

Moderate-Income

Above Moderate-

Income Total

RHNA 1,618 825 1,958 4,401

Built and planned projects (see Table 37) 48 0 8,542 8,582

Residential Holding Capacity 4,292 1,490 0 5,782

Residential Holding Capacity on

Residentially-Designated Vacant Land (see

Table A-1) 1,525 942 0 2,467


Commercial Mixed-Use Vacant Land (see

TableA-1) 1,654 0 - 1,654


Underutilized Land with Short-Term Infill

Development/Redevelopment Potential

(see Table A-2) 1,113 548 - 1,661

Remaining Need2 0 0 0 0

1) The RHNA for lower-income includes 459 extremely low-, 466 very low-, and 693 low-income units.

2) There is excess capacity for lower-income and moderate-income groups of 2,722 units and 665 units, respectively.

Source: SJCOG, City of Manteca, and Mintier Harnish.

3. Land Available for a Variety of Housing Types

State Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583(c)(1) and 65583.2(c)) requires that local

governments analyze the availability of sites that will ―facilitate and encourage the development of a

variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multi-family rental housing, factory-built

housing, mobile-homes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy

units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.‖

This section discusses the availability of sites and relevant regulations that govern the development of the

types of housing listed above and also discusses sites suitable for redevelopment for residential use (as

required by Government Code Section 65583(a)(3)) and second units.

Multi-Family Rental Housing

Manteca’s MDR (Medium Density Residential), HDR (High Density Multi-Family), and CMU

(Commercial Mixed Use) General Plan land use designations allow multi-family housing. The MDR

designation allows housing up to 15 units per acre, and the HDR and CMU designations allow between

15.1 and 25 units per acre (see Table 43). Manteca’s regulations make no distinction between rental and

ownership housing.

-




Manufactured Housing

Manufactured housing can serve as an alternative form of affordable housing in low-density areas where

the development of higher-density multi-family residential units is not allowed.

Manufactured Homes on Lots

Sections 65852.3 and 65852.4 of the California Government Code specify that a jurisdiction shall allow

the installation of manufactured homes on a foundation on all ―lots zoned for conventional single-family

residential dwellings.‖ Except for architectural requirements, the jurisdiction is only allowed to ―subject

the manufactured home and the lot on which it is placed to the same development standards to which a

conventional single-family residential dwelling on the same lot would be subject.‖ The architectural

requirements are limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material.

The only two exceptions that local jurisdictions are allowed to make to the manufactured home siting

provisions are if: 1) there is more than 10 years difference between the date of manufacture of the

manufactured home and the date of the application for the issuance of an installation permit; or 2) if the

site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and regulated by a legislative body pursuant to

Government Code Section 37361. However a city may require the application to comply with the city’s

architectural requirements even if the architectural requirements are not required of conventional single-

family residential dwellings (California Government Code 65852.4).

Manteca’s Municipal Code is consistent with State law. Manufactured homes that are placed on

permanent foundations, connected to City utilities, and meet the City’s development standards included,

but not limited to, covered off-street parking, building setbacks, and landscaping are allowed in the same

zoning districts that allow single-family dwellings. Small Employee Housing also allows manufactured

homes on property used temporarily or seasonally for the residential use of unrelated persons/families

employed to perform agricultural or industrial labor either on- or off-site of agricultural activities.

Mobile Home Parks

Section 65852.7 of the California Government Code specifies that mobile home parks shall be a permitted

use on ―all land planned and zoned for residential land use.‖ However, local jurisdictions are allowed to

require use permits for mobile home parks. Chapter 17.22 of Manteca’s Municipal Code describes the

City’s regulations of mobile home parks. Manteca’s Municipal Code allows mobile home parks in the R-

2 and R-3 zones with a conditional use permit. The Municipal Code will need to be revised to bring it into

compliance with State law.

-



Housing for Farmworkers

The provisions of Section 17020 (et seq.) of the California Health and Safety Code relating to employee

housing and labor camps supersede any ordinance or regulations enacted by local governments. Such

housing is allowed in all jurisdictions in California pursuant to the regulations set forth in Section 17020.

Section 17021.5(b) states, for example:

―Any employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees shall be deemed a

single-family structure with a residential land use designation for the purposes of this section. For the

purpose of all local ordinances, employee housing shall not be included within the definition of a

boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or other similar term that implies that the

employee housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling. No

conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of employee

housing that serves six or fewer employees that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type

in the same zone.‖

Section 17021.5, concerning farmworker housing, states that:

―No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of employee

housing that serves 12 or fewer employees and is not required of any other agricultural activity in the

same zone.‖

Manteca’s Municipal Code describes Employee Housing as property used temporarily or seasonally for

the residential use of unrelated persons/families employed to perform agricultural activities. Small

Employee Housing is allowed in all residential zoning districts in Manteca. There is sufficient capacity in

both single-family and multifamily zones for the development of farmworker housing.

Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, Supportive Housing, and Other Group Living

Emergency Shelters

SB 2, passed in 2007 and in effect as of January 1, 2008, amended State Housing Element law (California

Government Code Sections 65582, 65583, and 65589.5) regarding shelter for homeless persons. This

legislation requires local jurisdictions to strengthen provisions for addressing the housing needs of

homeless persons, including the identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as

a permitted use without a conditional use permit.

The Manteca Municipal Code defines ―emergency shelters‖ as:

―Housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of

six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency

shelter because of an inability to pay.‖

-




The new legislation added provisions to State Housing Element Law (Section 65583(a)(4)(A)) that

require local governments to identify:

―A zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional

use or other discretionary permit. The identified zone or zones shall include sufficient capacity to

accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7), except that each local

government shall identify a zone or zones that can accommodate at least one year-round

emergency shelter. If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient

capacity, the local government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to meet the

requirements of this paragraph within one year of the adoption of the housing element. The local

government may identify additional zones where emergency shelters are permitted with a

conditional use permit. The local government shall also demonstrate that existing or proposed

permit processing, development, and management standards are objective and encourage and

facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters.‖

The provisions go on to discuss that emergency shelters ―may only be subject to those development and

management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone‖ along

with a list of exceptions that may be made. Local governments that already have one or more emergency

shelters within their jurisdiction or ―pursuant to a multijurisdictional agreement‖ that accommodates that

jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter are only required to identify a zone or zones where new

emergency shelters are allowed with a conditional use permit.

As previously discussed, the City has two emergency shelters operated by HOPE Ministries. Chapter

17.22 of the Manteca Municipal Code outlines the allowable uses for Emergency Shelters, which are

allowed ―by right‖ in the CG zoning district and with a conditional use permit in the CN and M1 zoning

district. Much of the land zoned CG is located along major corridors of the city and is close to services,

and therefore is an appropriate zone for emergency shelters. There are 625.27 acres of land zoned CG,

over 300 acres of which is vacant. There are 21 vacant parcels that range in size as follows:

Under 5 acres: 2 parcels

5-10 acres: 5 parcels



Greater than 30 acres: 2 parcels

There is sufficient land capacity to accommodate existing and future needs for emergency shelters.

Therefore, Manteca complies with State law requirements for emergency shelters.

Transitional Housing

While SB2 added specific new requirements for local governments to meet in terms of planning for

emergency shelter facilities, Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) also states that ―transitional housing

-



and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property, and shall be subject only to those

restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.‖ Transitional

Housing is allowed by right in all the residential zoning districts, including A, R-E, R-1, R-2, R-3, and

CMU. Additionally, the Municipal Code allows for Transitional Housing by-right in the CG, and in the

M1 zone with a conditional use permit. Section 17.24.020 of the Manteca Municipal Code contains the

following definitions, consistent with State law:

―Transitional Housing. Buildings configured as rental housing developments, but

operating under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and

recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some

predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the

beginning of the assistance (Government Code 65582(h)). Transitional housing units

must be considered residential uses subject only to those requirements and restrictions

that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.‖

Supportive Housing

Supportive housing is permanent rental housing linked to a range of support services designed to enable

residents to maintain stable housing and lead fuller lives. Typically, a portion of the housing is targeted to

people who have risk factors such as homelessness, or health challenges such as mental illness or

substance addiction. Supportive housing comes in all shapes and sizes. It could be a renovated motel

offering furnished single-room occupancy (SRO) apartments; a multifamily development where tenants

with disabilities live alongside other families with low incomes; a small, more service-intensive building;

or scattered-site apartments. Whatever the configuration, all of the housing allows tenants to access

support services that enable them to live as independently as possible. The Manteca Municipal Code

allows for Supportive Housing by-right in all residential districts, including A, R-E, R-1, R-2, R-3, and

CMU as well as the CG zone. Section 17.24.020 of the Manteca Municipal Code contains the following

definitions, consistent with State law:

―Supportive Housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the

target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite service that assists the supportive

housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and

maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community

(Government Code 65582(f)). Supportive housing units must be considered residential

uses subject only to those requirements and restrictions that apply to other residential

uses of the same type in the same zone.‖

Second Units

A second dwelling unit is an additional self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from the

primary residential unit on a single lot. It has cooking, eating, sleeping, and full sanitation facilities.

Second dwelling units can be an important source of affordable housing since they can be constructed

inexpensively and have no associated land costs. Second dwelling units can also provide supplemental

income to the homeowner, allowing the elderly to remain in their homes or moderate-income families to

afford houses.

-




To encourage establishment of second dwelling units on existing developed lots, State law requires cities

and counties to either adopt an ordinance based on standards set out in the law authorizing creation of

second dwelling units in residentially-zoned areas, or where no ordinance has been adopted, to allow

second dwelling units on lots zoned for single-family or multi-family use that contain an existing single-

family unit subject to ministerial approval (―by right‖) if they meet standards set out by law. Local

governments are precluded from totally prohibiting second dwelling units in residentially-zoned areas

unless they make specific findings (Government Code, Section 65852.2).

The City of Manteca allows second dwelling units ―by right‖ in all residential zoning districts, including

R-E, R-1, R-2, and R-3. Additionally second dwelling units are allowed ―by right‖ in the A zone (Chapter

17.82 Second Dwelling Units). The Zoning Code states that the second dwelling unit cannot exceed 1,200

square feet in floor space, excluding any attached garage area, and shall conform to the setback and height

requirements for the primary dwelling. Additionally the detached second dwelling must have minimum

interior side and rear setback of 5 feet and front and street side setbacks of 10 feet; be set back from other

structures on the parcel; not exceed one story or 15 feet in height, except that a detached second unit may

be constructed above a detached garage to a maximum height of 30 feet; and, must be constructed at the

rear or interior side of an existing single-family residence, or otherwise appear secondary in nature, and

cannot be constructed in front of the primary structure. The City of Manteca meets State requirements for

second units.

According to the City of Manteca Community Development Department, there has been zero second unit

constructed in the city since 2010.

Sites Suitable for Redevelopment for Residential Use

California law eliminated redevelopment throughout the state in February 2012. The law, Assembly Bill

X1 26, required the establishment of successor agencies to take over the remaining vestiges of

redevelopment. Therefore the Manteca Redevelopment Agency became the Successor Agency to the

Manteca Redevelopment Agency. Additionally in June 2012 Governor Brown signed into law Assembly

Bill 1484 (AB 1484). One of the key components of AB 1484 was the requirement that all successor

agencies develop a Long-Range Property Management Plan that governs the disposition and use of

former non-housing redevelopment agency properties. Manteca’s Long-Range Property Management

Plan is broken down into two categories: Intention to Sell and Government Use. In the Plan, the

Successor Agency in Manteca describes how the properties identified as ―Intention to Sell‖ will be sold to

a private party for development, while properties identified as ―Government Use,‖ will be used for public

purposes, such as a public parking lot and transit related purposes.

Single-Room Occupancy Units

Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units can provide affordable private housing for lower-income

individuals, seniors, and persons with disabilities. An SRO unit usually is small, between 200 to 350

square feet. These units can serve as an entry point into the housing market for formerly homeless people.

The City of Manteca describes SROs and outlines the allowed uses and development standards for SROs

in Chapter 17.22.020 Allowed Uses and Required Entitlements. SROs are only allowed in the R-3

residential zone with a conditional use permit.

-



4. Adequacy of Public Facilities and Infrastructure

This section addresses the adequacy of public facilities, services, and infrastructure to accommodate

planned residential growth through the end of the Housing Element planning period (June 30, 2014). The

following information regarding the adequacy of public facilities and infrastructure is based largely on

information from the City of Manteca 2004 Water Master Plan, the December 2006 Wastewater Quality

Control Facility Master Plan Update, the August 2006 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan

Update, and 2015 Manteca’s Municipal Service Review.

Water

Until the mid-2000s, the sole source of water supply for the city was groundwater extraction pumped

from 16 wells located throughout the city. However, the completion of the South San Joaquin Irrigation

District (SSJID) South County Surface Water Supply Project in 2005 provided additional water resources

of up to 11,500 acre-feet per year to the city. The project included construction of a new water treatment

plant near Woodward Reservoir in Stanislaus County and pipelines to supply water to the cities of

Manteca, Lathrop, Escalon, and Tracy.

According to the 2004 Water Master Plan, as of 2003 the total annual water production for the city of

Manteca (with a population of 57,485) was 14,298 acre-feet. The planned water supply for the primary

urban service area (PUSA) is approximately 32,390 acre-feet at build out. This water supply could

support a population of about 128,000. Taking into account the 4,054 housing units assigned to the city of

Manteca by the RHNA, the 2014 population would be approximately 78,500.12

According to the City’s

2015 Municipal Service Review, adopted by the San Joaqin County LAFCo in July 2016, Manteca

currently (2015) has the capacity to store 13,900 acre-feet of groundwater, or 4.53 billion gallons, as well

as the capacity to store 11,500 acre-feet of surface water, or 3.75 billion gallons. This allotment from

South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) under Phase I is under the City’s full allotment. The Phase

II allotment from SSJID would be 18,500 acre-feet of water per year, although the City does not project to

need the Phase II allotment through 2035, based on population projections.However projected allotments

are subject to the availability of surface water, which can be affected by the current (2015) drought

conditions. Based on an analysis of normal, single-dry years, and multi-dry years, the City’s MSR

concluded that there is sufficient capacity of groundwater and Phase I surface water to supply the

projected demand through 2035.

The City is continuously upgrading and maintaining its water system, including the treatment of wells for

arsenic, and infrastructure improvements. Additional infrastructure improvements include: replacing

deteriorating pipelines, relocating meters from back lots to front lots to eliminate the need for the existing

4-inch water mains and allow for the installation of the 12-inch and larger transmission mains.

The City plans to fund the water system upgrades through revenues from the Water Operations and

Maintenance Fund and the Water Capital Improvements Fund, which are generated from the City’s water

rates.

12

The 2014 population was estimated by multiplying the 4,054 housing units from the RHNA by Manteca’s 2000

Census average household size of 2.98 persons per households and adding the resulting 12,081 persons to the 2008

population of 66,451.

-




Sewer

The City of Manteca Department of Public Works is responsible for the sanitary sewer system for the city

of Manteca. The existing sewer system consists of eleven wastewater pump stations. The majority of the

collection system serves the core of the city (Central Shed), approximately bound by SR 120, Austin

Road, Union Road, and Lathrop Road. The wastewater collection strategy in Manteca consists of an

overall trunk sewer strategy that uses a combination trunk sewer gravity collection system with pump or

lift stations located along the alignment to move wastewater to an influent pump located the Manteca-

Lathrop Water Quality Control Facility (MLWQCF). Several subdivisions located on the perimeter have

installed temporary wastewater pump stations. These interm pump stations are constructed as needed and

gradually phased out as the collection system is completed. Wastewater flow from specific sections of the

city will be directed to either a pump station, lift station, or a trunk sewer. Specifically the North Manteca

Collection Strategy (NMCS) and the South Manteca Collection Strategy (SMCS) will collect flow from

areas where future growth is expected. The Central Manteca Collection Strategy (CMCS) connects the

existing collection system to the NMCS.

The MLWQCF is currently (2015) a 9.87 mgd combined biofilter-activated sludge tertiary treatment

plant, and the average daily flow rate is about 6.5 mgd. These figures include both Manteca and Lathrop.

This facility uses an influent pump station with three mechanical screens, which serve two parallel

treatment systems. The City’s Water Quality Control Facility Master Plan concludes that the MLWQCF’s

buildout capacity is 27 mgd, however, the City’s 2015 Municipal Service Review concludes that this

capacity may change as the permitting and engineering for the facility’s expansion has not begun.

The City coordinates its sewer treatment capacity through a sewer allocation system with the number of

building permits issued for residential, commercial, industrial, and other development to ensure that new

development does not exceed the amount of available sewer capacity and to distribute a limited resource

equitably. Having completed phase III improvements, the City has capacity to serve a population of about

82,000.

Additionally according to the City’s 2015 Municipal Service Review, adopted by the San Joaqin County

LAFCo in July 2016, the City estimates wastewater flows to toal 19.5 mgd with a buildout capacity of

23.0 mgd by 2023.

B. Inventory of Local, State, and Federal Housing and Financing Programs

The City of Manteca uses local, State, and Federal funds to implement its housing strategy. Because of

the high cost of new construction, more than one source of public funds is required to construct an

affordable housing development. The City of Manteca does not act as a developer in the production of

affordable units, but relies on the private sector to develop new units with the assistance of these various

funding sources.

-



1. Former Redevelopment Agency and Successor Agency

Manteca’s Redevelopment Agency was dissolved on February 1, 2012. Prior to the dissolution of

redevelopment agency, the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (LMIHF) was the major source of

housing funds for the City’s housing programs. State law required that Redevelopment Agency deposit 20

percent of the gross tax incremental revenues from redevelopment project areas into the LMIHF to be

used exclusively for housing for persons with low and moderate income. With the elimination of the

Redevelopment Agency, there will be no future funding for the LMIHF from property tax increment.

The City of Manteca acts as the Housing Successor Agency of the former Redevelopment Agency. As the

Housing Successor, the City Oversees bond proceeds of the former Redevelopment Agency.

HOME Program Funds

The City of Manteca funds many of its affordable housing programs using Home Investment Partnership

Act, or HOME funds. For the 2008-09 Fiscal Year the City was awarded $129,885 in HOME funds.

During FY 2007-08 the City received $134,405 in HOME funds. The City applied all of these funds to

the construction of a 100-unit multi-family, affordable rental housing project by Mid Peninsula Housing

Coalition. In 2007-08 Eden Housing, Inc. began construction on a 50-unit senior rental housing project

using the City of Manteca’s FY 2005-06 HOME program funds. According to the San Joaquin Urban

County’s 2013-14 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER), Manteca used all of

their HOME program funds ($59,354) for owner-occupied housing rehabilitation programs. During Fiscal

Year (FY) 2013-14 five rehabilitation loans were provided to qualified homeowners expending $102,293.

CDBG Funds

The City of Manteca also uses some of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for

affordable housing projects. For FY 2008-09 the City received $355,490 in CDBG funds. It plans to use

this money to fund the First Time Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance Program.

Local Housing Programs

Home Rehabilitation Program

The Home Rehabilitation Program, administered by the County’s Community Development Department,

is a financing program that assists property owners with residential building improvements by making

needed renovations affordable. The program offers low-interest (2 percent) reduced and deferred payment

loans for low-income homeowners as well as offers a wide range of services for property improvements,

including assistance with selecting a contractor, finance counseling, and permit expediting. In order to

qualify, the homeowner must have owned the home for at least a year, her/his income must not exceed 80

percent of the County median, and must not have more than one existing mortgage on the home.

GAP Loan Program

The City of Manteca GAP Loan Program, administered through the San Joaquin County Neighborhood

Preservation Office, provides deferred downpayment assistance loans for 20 percent of the sales price of a

home, not to exceed $40,000. This program is available to low-income, first-time homebuyers for a home

-




in the city of Manteca that does not exceed a cost of $304,750. Payments may be deferred over a 30-year

period at a two percent interest rate. The program homebuyer must agree, however, to share part of the

equity in the home with the County if the home is sold or refinanced.

2. San Joaquin Housing Authority

The San Joaquin Housing Authority has several programs to assist low- and moderate-income

households: the Housing Choice Vouchers Program (HCVP), Public Housing, and the Market Rate

Properties. The Public Housing Program provides rental assistance at four main sites (two in Stockton,

one in Tracy, and one in Thornton). Through the Market Rate Program the Housing Authority owns and

manages four market rate properties throughout the county (three in Stockton and one in Lodi). The

Housing Choice Vouchers Program is the only program operated by the Housing Authority that is

available to Manteca residents.

Housing Choice Vouchers Program (HCVP)

The San Joaquin Housing Authority manages the Housing Choice Vouchers Program (formerly Section

8) for all of San Joaquin County. The HCVP provides assistance to help extremely low-, very low-, and

low-income residents of San Joaquin County, including residents of Manteca, to afford safe, decent, and

sanitary rental housing. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to

the Housing Authority to administer the program.

3. Local Fair Housing Service Agencies

There are several organizations that provide fair housing services either within the city of Manteca or to

Manteca residents. The following is a list of some of these organizations:

Council for the Spanish Speaking

Family Law Service Center

Family Resource Center

Manteca Fair Housing, Inc.

Mediation Center of San Joaquin County

San Joaquin Housing Authority

San Joaquin Fair Housing Association

4. State and Federal Housing Programs

In addition to the funding programs available through the City and County, there are several State and

Federal funding programs that assist first-time homebuyers, build affordable housing, and help special

needs groups, such as seniors and large households. In most cases other entities, including for-profit and

non-profit developers, apply for funds or other program benefits. For example, developers apply directly

to USDA for Section 515 loans, to HUD for Section 202 and Section 811 loans, or to the California Tax

-



Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) for low-income housing tax credits. In general, the City of

Manteca relies upon the private sector to develop new affordable units.

Table 40 provides a comprehensive list of State and Federal funding programs for housing. The following

paragraphs are descriptions of some of the most significant State and Federal funding programs that are

available to fund affordable housing opportunities.

Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)

As part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, the Federal Government established the

Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) to deal with the national foreclosure crisis. The U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocated a total of $3.92 billion to all states,

particularly to hard-hit areas. California received a total of nearly $530 million in NSP funds. U.S. HUD

has already directly distributed most of the funds (about $385 million) to some of the hardest hit cities

and counties in the state. The remaining $145 million will be distributed by the State on a competitive

basis.

HUD's new Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) provides targeted emergency assistance to state

and local governments to acquire and redevelop foreclosed properties that might otherwise become

sources of abandonment and blight. State and local governments can use the NSP grants to acquire land

and property, demolish or rehabilitate abandoned properties, and offer down payment and closing cost

assistance to low- and moderate-income homebuyers. Through the NSP governments can also create

"land banks"–public authorities that can acquire, hold, manage, and develop foreclosure properties.

Congress directed that NSP grant funds must be obligated for specific activities within 18 months.

-




The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 established the following three specific targeting

responsibilities for state and local governments implementing the NSP:

1. ―All of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this section shall be used

with respect to individuals and families whose income does not exceed 120 percent of area

median income;‖

2.‖Not less than 25 percent of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this

section shall be used for the purchase and redevelopment of abandoned or foreclosed homes or

residential properties that will be used to house individuals or families whose incomes do not

exceed 50 percent of area median income;‖ and

3. ―Grantees should give priority emphasis in targeting the funds that they receive to "those

metropolitan areas, metropolitan cities, urban areas, rural areas, low- and moderate-income areas,

and other areas with the greatest need, including those--

(A) with the greatest percentage of home foreclosures;

(B) with the highest percentage of homes financed by a subprime mortgage related loan;

and

(C) identified by the State or unit of general local government as likely to face a

significant rise in the rate of home foreclosures.‖

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program also seeks to protect future homebuyers from foreclosures by

requiring that new homebuyers receive housing counseling and obtain a mortgage loan from a lender who

agrees to comply with sound lending practices.

Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG)

Sponsored by HCD, the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program provides funds to local government to make

infrastructure improvements that are necessary to encourage the development of infill housing.

Infrastructure improvements for infill development include: park creation; water, sewer, or other public

infrastructure; transportation improvements; traffic mitigation; and brownfield cleanup. Grants allocated

to qualifying infill projects range from $500,000 to $4 million. Grant amount for rural areas is minimum

$250,000.

Workforce Housing Reward (WHR) Program

The Workforce Housing Reward Program, sponsored by HCD, provides grants to cities and counties that

issue building permits for very low- or low-income affordable housing. The funds can be used for a

variety of projects including, but not limited to, housing, infrastructure improvements, parks, and

community revitalization efforts. This program is currently (2008) not making awards; however, it may

be available again in the future.

-



HOME Investment Partnership Programs (HOME)

HOME provides grants to cities and counties and low-interest loans to state-certified Community Housing

Development Organizations (CHDO) to build and maintain affordable housing. Cities and counties that

receive direct funding from HUD are not eligible for HOME grants through HCD. In 2013-2014 Fiscal

Year, HUD awarded $736,171 in HOME funds to San Joaquin County. The County allocated $59,354 of

this fund to the City of Manteca.

Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)

The purpose of the CDBG program is to provide decent housing and expand economic opportunities for

people with low and moderate income. CDBG is a federal program; however, in California the state

administers the program for smaller counties and cities.

San Joaquin County receives funds directly from federal government. In 2013-2014 Fiscal Year, HUD

granted approximately $1.5 million to San Joaquin County and the County allocated $362,796 of it to the

City of Manteca. CDBG applications open annually and grants are distributed on a formula based

calculation.

CalHOME Program

CalHOME provides grants and loans to local public agencies and nonprofit developers to assist low- and

very-low income households to become or remain homeowners. CalHOME awards grants to local public

agencies for first-time homebuyer downpayment assistance, home acquisition and rehabilitation,

homebuyer counseling, self-help mortgage assistance programs, or technical assistance for self-help

homeownership. It also provides loans to nonprofit developers for real property acquisition, site

development, predevelopment, construction period expenses of homeownership development projects, or

permanent financing for mutual housing and cooperative developments. HCD issues NOFAs as funding

for this program becomes available.

Veteran Housing and Homeless Prevention Program (VHHP)

Veteran’s Bond Act of 2008 authorized $900 million in general obligation bonds to help veterans

purchase single-family homes, farms, and mobile homes through the CalVet Home Loan Program. This

program failed to meet its projected demand because of economic depression and State’s housing crisis.

In 2013, AB 639 restructured the 2008 Veteran’s Bond Act and authorized $600 million in existing bond

authority to fund multifamily housing for veterans. HCD, CalHFA, and CalVet are collaborating in

developing and administering this program. HCD released a Notice of Funding Availability for VHHP on

February 20, 2015. The funding available at the time of issue of notice was $75 million.

Drought Housing Rental Subsidies Program (SB104)

This program aims to provide rental subsidies ―to persons rendered homeless or at risk of becoming

homeless due to unemployment, underemployment, or other economic hardship or losses resulting from

the drought‖. In June 2014, HCD asked qualified local government agencies and nonprofit organizations

to submit a Statement of Qualifications to administer $10 million of State rental assistance funds.

-




Section 811 Program

The Section 811 program, sponsored by HUD, provides interest-free capital advances and operating

subsidies to nonprofit developers to assist the development of affordable housing for persons with

disabilities. This program also provides rental assistance to state housing agencies through a new Project

Rental Assistance Program. Public sponsors are not eligible to apply for Section 811 funds. The capital

advance can cover the construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of supportive housing. The sponsor does

not have to repay the capital advance as long as the project serves the target population for 40 years.

Additionally, rental assistance funds are provided for three years to cover the difference between the

HUD-approved operating cost for the development and the rent paid by tenants–usually 30 percent of

adjusted income. These three-year contracts are renewable based on the availability of funds. State

housing agencies that have entered partnerships with state health and human services and Medicaid

agencies can benefit from the new Project Rental Assistance Program for new or existing affordable

housing developments funded by LIHTC, HOME, or other sources. Projects funded by Project Rental

Assistance Program must target households with extremely low income and at least one adult member

with a disability.

Section 202 Program

The Section 202 program, also sponsored by HUD, is similar to the Section 811 Program; however, the

target population for the Section 202 program is the very low-income elderly. The same capital advance

and rental assistance is available to private, non-profit sponsors of affordable elderly housing. As with

the Section 811 program, public sponsors are not eligible for the Section 202 program.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits Program (LIHTC)

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program was created in 1986 by the Federal Government

as a method for funding affordable housing. Depending on the project, the program gives either a 9

percent or 4 percent income tax credit over a 10-year period to the housing developer to help leverage the

private costs of construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing units. Since the amount of credit

available to the owner often exceeds the amount the owner can use, private investors frequently

participate in the LIHTC project through a syndication process and receive Federal tax credits in return

for an upfront investment.

Applying for the LIHTC program is a competitive process. Projects are ranked relative to each other

based on criteria in the State’s Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP). The QAP considers factors such as cost,

amenities, and project location when comparing proposed projects. To qualify for the LIHTC program,

projects must also meet specific minimum requirements. These requirements are as follows:

At least 20 percent of the residential units must be affordable to individuals whose income is 50

percent or less of the area median household income; or

At least 40 percent of the residential units must be affordable to individuals whose income is 60

percent or less of the area median household income; and

The housing units must remain affordable for a 30-year period.

-



Private Funding

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) directs the Department of the Treasury, the Federal

Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to

encourage and assist the institutions they regulate to meet the credit needs of their communities. These

agencies must assess the records of their member institutions when evaluating applications for a charter or

other regulated transactions. As a result of the CRA, many major financial institutions have elected to

actively participate in funding low- and moderate-income housing developments developed by non-profit

corporations.

The Federal Home Loan Bank provides direct project financing through its member institutions as part of

its Affordable Housing Program. The Savings Associations Mortgage Company (SAMCO), which is an

organization of savings institutions, also provides financing for affordable housing developments. The

California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) was formed to pool the resources of the state's

banks to assist in financing affordable housing. Finally, the Federal National Mortgage Association

(Fannie Mae) provides permanent financing for affordable housing development by purchasing or

securitizing the lender-originated first mortgages on mutually agreeable terms.

-




Table 40 Financial Resources for Housing

2015

Program Name Program Description

Federal Programs

Section 811 Project

Rental Assistance

Provides an interest-free capital advance to cover the costs of construction, rehabilitation,

or acquisition of housing for persons with disabilities. The sponsor does not have to repay

the capital advance as long as the project serves the target population for 40 years. Rental

assistance funds are provided for three years, and are renewable based on the availability of

funds. The program is available to private, non-profit sponsors. Public sponsors are not

eligible for the program.

HOME Investment

Partnerships

Provides grants to jurisdictions on a competitive basis for acquisition, rehabilitation, home

buyer assistance, and rental assistance

Housing

Opportunities for

Persons with AIDS

(HOPWA)

Provides housing assistance and related supportive services for low-income persons living

with HIV/AIDS and their families. HOPWA program provides both formula (90 percent)

and competitive (10 percent) grants.

Housing Trust Fund

(HTF)

Provides assistance to increase and maintain the supply of decent, safe, and sanitary

affordable housing for extremely low- and very low-income households, including

homeless families.

Rental Assistance

Demonstration

(RAD)

Allows Public Housing Agencies and other HUD-assisted properties to convert units from

their original sources of HUD funding to project-based section 8 contracts.

Section 236

Preservation Program

Aims to preserve the affordability of rental units originally developed through Section 236

mortgage program.

Community

Development Block

Grant (CDBG)

Provides grants for acquisition, rehabilitation, home buyer assistance, economic

development, homeless assistance, and public services.

Emergency Solutions

Grants (ESG)

Provides funding for street outreach, emergency shelter, homelessness prevention, rapid re-

housing, and Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).

Continuum of Care

(CoC)

Provides funding to support nonprofit organizations and State and local governments to

quickly re-house homeless individuals and families, minimize the trauma caused to

homeless individuals, families, and communities by homelessness, support access to

programs, and optimize self-sufficiency among homeless individuals and families.

HUD Veterans

Affairs Supportive

Housing Program

(HUD-VASH)

A joint program between HUD and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). HUD

provides housing vouchers and VA provides case management and outreach.

-




2015


Rural Housing

Stability Assistance

Program (RHSP)

Provides grants to counties, private nonprofit organizations, and units of local government

for rent, mortgage, and utility assistance, relocation assistance, short-term emergency

lodging, acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, rental assistance, leasing, capacity

building, and data collection and administrative costs.

Rural Housing and

Economic

Development

(RHED)

Provides funds to local rural non-profits, Community Development Corporations (CDCs),

federally recognized Indian tribes, state Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs), and State

Community and Economic Development Agencies for a variety of activities. These

activities include but are not limited to preparation of plans, architectural drawings,

acquisition of land and buildings, demolition, provision of infrastructure, purchase of

materials and construction costs, use of local labor markets, job training and counseling for

beneficiaries and financial services such as revolving loan funds and Individual

Development Accounts.

State Programs

2014 Drought

Housing Rental

Subsidies Program

(SB 104)

Provides rental subsidies for the persons who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless

due to unemployment, underemployment, or other economic hardship or losses resulting

from the drought conditions.

AB 1699 HCD Loan

Restructuring

Program

Authorizes loan extensions, subordination of department loans to a new senior loan, and tax

credit investment. HCD expects to fully implement the program in early 2015.

Affordable Housing

Innovation Program

(AHIP) - Golden

State Acquisition

Fund (GSAF)

Provides acquisition financing through a nonprofit fund manager to affordable housing

developers for development or preservation of affordable housing.

Affordable Housing

Innovation Program –

Local Housing Trust

Fund

Provides matching grants (dollar-for-dollar) to local housing trust funds that are funded on

an ongoing basis from private contributions or public sources (that are not otherwise

restricted). The grants may be used to provide loans for construction of rental housing that

is deed-restricted for at least 55 years to very low-income households, and for down-

payment assistance to qualified first-time homebuyers.

Construction Liability

Insurance Reform

Pilot Program

(CLIRPP)

Provides grants for construction oversight and monitoring activities to reduce insurance

rates for condominium development.

-





2015


Affordable Housing

and Sustainable

Communities

Program (AHSC)

Provides funds for land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to assist

infill and compact development. The program is administered by Strategic Growth Council

and implemented by HCD.

Community

Development Block

Grant Recovery

Program (CDBG-R)

Provides grants for single and multifamily rehabilitation and construction, rental housing

acquisition, and homeownership assistance.

CalHOME

Provides grants to local governments and non-profit agencies for local homebuyer

assistance, owner-occupied rehabilitation programs, and new development projects. Funds

can be used to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation, and replacement of manufactured

homes.

Emergency Housing

and Assistance

Program Capital

Development

(EHAPCD)

Provides funds to local government agencies and nonprofit organizations that shelter

homeless for capital development activities for emergency shelters, transitional housing,

and safe havens.

Governor's Homeless

Initiative

Provides funds to assist the development of permanent supportive housing for persons with

severe mental illness who are chronically homeless.

Housing-Related

Parks Program Provides grants for creation and rehabilitation of parks.

Infill Infrastructure

Grant Program (IIG)

Provides grants to Qualifying Infill Projects and Large Multi-Phased Qualifying Infill

Projects for construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure.

Mobilehome Park

Resident Ownership

Program (MPROP)

Provides loans to resident organizations, nonprofit housing sponsors, or local public

agencies to purchase and preserve affordable mobilehome parks.

Multifamily Housing

Program (MHP)

Provides loans to local public entities, for-profit and nonprofit corporations, limited equity

housing cooperatives, individuals, Indian reservations and rancheries, and limited

partnerships to assist new construction, rehabilitations and preservation of permanent and

transitional rental housing for lower income households.

Office of Migrant

Services (OMS)

Provides funds to local government agencies that contract with HCD to operate OMS

centers to construct, rehabilitate, maintain, and operate seasonal rental housing for migrant

farmworkers.

Predevelopment Loan

Program (PDLP)

Provides short-term loans to local government agencies, nonprofit corporations,

cooperative housing corporations, and limited partnerships or limited liability companies to

finance the start of low income housing projects.

-




2015


Transit Oriented

Development (TOD)

Housing Program

Provides grants and loans to cities, counties, transit agencies, and developers for housing

development within one-quarter mile of a transit station.

Veterans Housing and

Homelessness

Prevention Program

(VHHP)

Provides funding for acquisition, construction, and preservation of affordable housing for

veterans and their families. This program does not provide funds directly to individuals.

San Joaquin County Housing Authority Programs

Housing Choice

Vouchers Program Provides rental assistance to very low-income families.

Public Housing Provides rental assistance for low- to moderate-income families. (Also known as Asset

Management Properties)

Market Rate Program Provides assistance for acquisition and management of market rate properties.

City/County Programs

GAP Loan Program

Provides downpayment assistance loans for up to 20 percent of the sales price, not to

exceed $40,000 of a home in Manteca, not to exceed $304,750. Program is administered

through the County’s Neighborhood Preservation Office.

Visionary's

Homeownership and

Rental Center

Provides counseling, foreclosure prevention or loan modification, and homebuyer

education services.

San Joaquin County

Weatherization

Program

Provides assistance for a variety of activities including but not limited to window repair,

attic insulation, heater repair, and door weather-stripping,

Disability Resource

Agency for

Independent Living

(DRAIL)

Provides assistance for all necessary adjustments in a house that will ease the movement of

the disabled person throughout the house.

Private Resources

California

Community

Reinvestment

Corporation (CCRC)

Non-profit mortgage banking consortium that provides long-term debt financing for multi-

family affordable rental housing. CCRC specializes in programs for families, seniors,

citizens with special needs, and mixed-use developments. Both non-profit and for-profit

developers are eligible.

Federal National

Mortgage Association

(Fannie Mae)

A shareholder-owned company with a Federal charter that operates in the secondary

mortgage market. Fannie Mae provides a variety of mortgages for single- and multi-family

housing, and has programs specifically designed for affordable housing.

Freddie Mac Home

Works A government-sponsored enterprise that provides first and second mortgages.

Source: Compiled by Mintier Harnish, April 2015.

-




5. Assisted Housing Projects in Manteca

In addition to ongoing housing programs, there are 592 existing affordable housing units receiving

government assistance in Manteca. Manteca Manor and Vernal Apartments provide 83 and 41 units of

Section 8 low-income housing for families. Almond Terrace Apartments provides 50 units of low-income

senior housing. Additionally Eden Housing recently (2009) built Almond Court, a 40-unit affordable

housing multifamily project for seniors ages 62 or older while Affirmed Housing built a 52-unit

affordable community for seniors in 2010. More recently (2012) the California Community Reinvestment

Corporation used permanent senior tax-except bonds and Manteca Redevelopment Agency funds to

finance construction of Juniper Apartments, a 153 unit affordable housing complex for low- and

moderate-income families. (see Table 41).

-



Table 41 Rental Projects Receiving Government Assistance

Manteca 2015

Name of Development Sponsor

Funding Sources

Year Built/ Rehabilitated

Expiration Date

Number of Units

Target Income Groups Description

At-Risk (Y/N)

Almond Terrace

Apartments

Eden

Housing

RDA, HUD 202,

SJC, HOME Built 2004 30 years-2034 50 Very low-income seniors

1 BR/1BA units; tenants

bay 30 percent of net

income

No

Eskaton Manteca

Manor Senior

Apartments Eskaton HUD 202 Built 1984

Will continue

to ensure HUD

202 status 83

Extremely Low to Very

low income Seniors (62+)

and mobility impaired

(18+)

Tenants pay 30 percent of

adjusted income

No

Vernal

Apartments

Privately

Owned

Accept Section 8

vouchers Built 1969 No Covenant 54 Lower-income households

1 BR & 2 BR apartments

and two 2 BR townhouses

At risk

Almond Court

Apartments

Eden

Housing

RDA, HUD 202,

SJC, HOME Built April 2009 30 years, 2039 40 Very Low-income seniors

Adjacent to Almond

Terrace Senior Apartments

No

Magnolia Court

Affirmed

Housing

LIHTC Tax

Credits, RDA

grant, RDA loan,

Prop 1C Infill

Infrastructure

Grant

Completed

November 2010 55 years, TBD 52

Very Low, to Low

income senior housing

(minimum 62 years old)

52 unit senior (62+)

apartments-6 studios, 37 1-

BR, 9 2-BR

No

Union Court

Apartments

Eden

Housing

HUD, tax credits,

RDA, HOME Rehab 2003 33 years-2033 68

Very low-, and low-

income households

2BR family units. Monthly

rents range from $347-$645

No

Cedar Glen RDA RDA Built 1993

15 years from

date of sale of

each unit 66

Very low, Low- and

moderate-income

households Owner-occupied units

At risk

Yosemite

Apartments

Privately

Owned

Accept Section 8

Vouchers Built 1970 No Covenant 26

Low to Moderate income

households

1 BR and 2 BR units. Rents

$667 to $775

No

Juniper

Apartments

(formerly

Tesoro)

Community

Developme

nt Trust

Tax-except bond

from the California

Community

Reinvestment

Corporation and

Manteca RDA Completed in 2012 55 years, TBD 153

Low- and Moderate-

income families

Nine two- and three- story

wood frame buildings with

walkup flats. Site has

community center,

computer room, pool, and

BBQ area

No

Total Existing Affordable Units 592

Total At Risk Affordable Units 120

Source: City of Manteca; San Joaquin County Human Services Agency, Retirement Housing, April 1, 2008; Mintier Harnish.

-




6. Preserving At-Risk Units

State law requires that housing elements include an inventory of all publicly assisted multi-family rental

housing projects within the local jurisdiction that are at risk of conversion to uses other than low-income

residential during The next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage payment, or

expiration of restricted use (Government Code 65583).

California Government Code Section 65863.10 requires that owners of Federally-assisted properties must

provide notice of intent to convert their properties to market rate twelve months and six months prior to

the expiration of their contract, opt-outs, or prepayment. Owners must provide notices of intent to public

agencies, including HCD, the local redevelopment agency, and the local public housing authority, and to

all impacted tenant households. The six-month notice must include specific information on the owner’s

plans, timetables, and reasons for termination. Under Government Code Section 65863.11, owners of

Federally-assisted projects must provide a Notice of Opportunity to Submit an Offer to Purchase to

Qualified Entities, non-profit or for-profit organizations that agree to preserve the long-term affordability

if they should acquire at-risk projects, at least one year before the sale or expiration of use restrictions.

Qualified Entities have first right of refusal for acquiring at-risk units.

Units are considered ―at-risk‖ if they will be eligible for termination of a rent subsidy contract, mortgage

prepayment, or expiring use restrictions within the next 10 years. As illustrated in Table 41 above, there

are currently (2015) 120 affordable housing projects at risk of conversion. Vernal Apartments accepts

Section 8 vouchers, but there is no guarantee that they will continue to accept over the next 10 years. The

Cedar Glen homes are approaching or have already passed their 15-year affordability restriction.

Cost Analysis

In order to provide a cost analysis of preserving ―at-risk‖ units, costs must be determined for

rehabilitation, new construction, or tenant-based rental assistance.

Acquisition and Rehabilitation

In the event that the affordability terms expire on an at-risk development and the property owners of the

projects decide to convert the rental rates of the units to be equal to or more than the fair market rental

rates, interested parties (nonprofit or for profit) may purchase and rehabilitate the property in order to

maintain the affordability of the units. Purchasing the at-risk units depends on the owners’ willingness to

sell, interested parties to purchase the project, and available funding assistance. The factors used to

analyze the cost to preserve the at-risk housing units include acquisition, rehabilitation, and financing

costs. These figures are estimates since actual costs will depend on condition, size, location, existing

financing, and the availability of financing.

Currently (May 2015) loopnet.com only lists one multifamily apartment building for sale in Manteca. It is

an 8-unit downtown building with two retail units below and is listed for $699,000. The cost per unit

(including retail) is approximately $70,000. If the City used that unit cost as an assumption, it would cost

the City $3,780,000 to replace the 54 at-risk units in the Vernal Apartments. The average rehabilitation

cost in San Joaquin County for each unit is estimated at $20,000, which means the approximate cost to

-



acquire and rehabilitate 54 units is $4,860,000. Cedar Glen consists of single-family homes. The median

sale price of a home in Manteca is $315,000. It would cost the City $20,790,000 to buy 66 homes to

replace the affordable single-family units in Cedar Glen. It would cost an additional $1,320,000 to

rehabilitate 66 homes, for a total cost of $22,110,000. Manteca’s total cost to replace the Vernal

Apartments and Cedar Glen would be approximately $26,970,000.

New Construction/Replacement

Almond Terrace, an affordable senior rental project built in 2004, cost $6,087,000 and consists of 50

units. The per unit cost of that project is $121,740. If the City wanted to replace the 54 units of the Vernal

Apartments with new construction, it would cost approximately $6,573,960, using Almond Terrace as a

guide. If the City wanted to replace the 66 single-family homes of Cedar Glen, New homes in Manteca

sell for approximately $370,000. Assuming a 20 percent homebuilder profit margin, a new home would

likely cost $296,000 to build. Therefore, it would cost $19,536,000 to build 66 homes to replace Cedar

Glen, and $26,109,960 to replace the Vernal Apartments and Cedar Glen.

Federal Programs to Preserve At-Risk Units

For below-market properties Section 8 preservation tools include the Mark-Up-to-Market program, which

provides incentives for for-profit property owners to remain in the Section 8 program after their contracts

expire. The Mark-Up-to-Budget program allows non-profit owners to increase below-market rents to

acquire new property or make capital repairs while preserving existing Section 8 units. For above-market

properties Mark-to-Market provides owners with debt restructuring in exchange for renewal of Section 8

contracts for 30 years.

For Section 236 properties Interest Reduction Payment (IRP) Retention/Decoupling enables properties to

retain IRP subsidy when new or additional financing is secured.

Due to the termination of two major Federal preservation programs (LIHPRHA and ELIHPA), and the

limitations of existing Federal tools such as Mark-to-Market, State and local governments must assume a

greater role in preserving HUD-assisted properties.

Section 515 enables USDA to provide deeply subsidized loans directly to developers of rural rental

housing. Loans have 30-year terms and are amortized over 50 years. The program gives first priority to

individuals living in substandard housing.

A range of resources are available for preservation of Section 515 resources. Non-profit organizations can

acquire Section 515 properties and assume the current mortgage or receive a new mortgage to finance

acquisition and rehabilitation of the structures. Section 538 Rental Housing Loan Guarantees are available

for the Section 514 and 516 loans and grants are also available for purchase and rehabilitation of Section

515 properties that are occupied by farmworkers. Section 533 provides a Housing Preservation Grant

Program, which funds rehabilitation, but not acquisition.

-




State Programs to Preserve At-Risk Units

At the State level, the California Housing Finance Agency offers low-interest loans to preserve long-term

affordability for multi-family rental properties through its Preservation Acquisition Finance Program.

The Division of Financial Assistance within Housing and Community Development offers the

Preservation Interim Repositioning Program (PIRP) to provide short-term acquisition loans for assisted

rental units at-risk of conversion to market rate. As of May 2015 HCD had committed all available funds

and was not accepting new applications.

The Division of Financial Assistance also offers Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), which provides

deferred payment loans for preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing, as well as new

construction and rehabilitation.

The HOME Investment Partnerships Program provides grants to cities and counties and low-interest loans

to State-certified community housing development organizations to create and preserve affordable

housing for single- and multi-family projects benefitting lower-income renters or owners.

Qualified Entities

Qualified entities are non-profit or for-profit organizations with the legal and managerial capacity to

acquire and manage at-risk properties that agree to maintain the long-term affordability of projects. The

following are organizations that can serve as qualified entities in San Joaquin County:

ACLC, Inc, 42 N. Sutter Street, Suite 206, Stockton, CA 95202, (209) 466-6811

Christian Church Homes of Northern California, Inc, 303 Hegenberger Road, Suite 201, Oakland,

CA 94621, (510) 632-6714

Community Home Builders and Associates, 675 N. First Street, Suite 620, San Jose, CA 95112,

(408) 977-1726

Eden Housing, Inc, 409 Jackson Street Hayward, CA 94544, (510) 582-1460

Eskaton Properties, Inc, 5105 Manzanita Avenue, Carmichael, CA 95608, (916) 334-0810

Foundation for Affordable Housing, Inc, 2847 Story Road, San Jose, CA 95127, (408) 923-8260

Housing Corporation of America, 31423 Coast Highway, Suite 7100, Laguna Beach, CA 92677,

(323) 726-9672

Kendra Care Incorporated, 4744 Brookfield Drive, Sacramento, CA 95823, (916) 395-3418

Rural California Housing Corp, 3120 Freeboard Drive, Ste. 202, West Sacramento, CA, 95691,

(916) 414-4400

Senior Housing Foundation, 1788 Indian Wells Way, Clayton, CA 94517, (925) 673-0489

Stockton Shelter for the Homeless, P.O. Box 4803, Stockton, CA 95204, (209) 465-3612

-



C. Energy Conservation Opportunities

State Housing Element Law requires an analysis of the opportunities for energy conservation in

residential development. Energy efficiency has direct application to affordable housing because the more

money spent on energy, the less available for rent or mortgage payments. High energy costs have

particularly detrimental effects on low-income households that do not have enough income or cash

reserves to absorb cost increases and many times must choose between basic needs such as shelter, food,

and energy. In addition, energy price increases since 2004 have led to a renewed interest in energy

conservation.

1. New Residential Energy Standards

All new buildings in California must meet the standards contained in Title 24, Part 6, of the California

Code of Regulations (Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential

Buildings). These regulations respond to California's energy crisis and need to reduce energy bills,

increase energy delivery system reliability, and contribute to an improved economic condition for the

state. They were established in 1978 and most recently updated in 2013 (effective date of January 1,

2014). Through the building permit process, local governments enforce energy efficiency requirements.

All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building-permit application is

made. The standards found in Title 24 create energy savings of approximately 50 percent over residential

construction practices used prior to the standards. Manteca is enforcing the provisions of Title 24 by

requiring that applicants complete a Title 24 worksheet and submit information about Title 24 with their

plans.

2. Subdivision Design for Heating or Cooling Opportunities

Section 66473.1 of the State Subdivision Map Act requires that the "design of a subdivision for which a

tentative map is required shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or

cooling opportunities in the subdivision." Although this section does not contain any precise standards,

the State Attorney General has opined that "a tentative map of a subdivision must be disproved if it fails

to meet the design requirement of Government Code Section 66473.1."

In accordance with the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act Section 66475.3, Section

16.21.090 of Manteca’s Municipal Code states that the City may require a subdivider to dedicate

easements to ensure that each parcel has access to sunlight for solar energy systems. The Code also states

that solar access easements shall not result in reducing allowable densities or lot coverage.

3. Weatherization Activities

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides natural gas and electric services for the city of Manteca.

PG&E offers a variety of programs to increase energy conservation and reduce monthly energy costs for

lower-income households. The following programs, offered by PG&E, are aimed at increasing energy

efficiency, and are available to PG&E customers in Manteca:

-




Energy Efficiency for Multifamily Properties Program is available to owners and managers of

existing multi-family residential dwellings containing two or more units. The program

encourages energy efficiency by providing rebates for the installation of certain energy-saving

products such as high-efficiency appliances, compact fluorescent light bulbs, attic and wall

insulation, and efficient heating and cooling systems.

Energy Savings Assistance Program provides free energy-saving improvements to households

who live in a house, mobilehome, or apartment that is at least five years old and have a total gross

annual income equal to or less than $47,700 (for 4 person household). Income limits vary based

on household size. This program provides services such as, installing insulation, weatherization,

and caulking.

The City of Manteca, recently (January 2015), has made the HERO Property Assessed Clean Energy

(PACE) program available to Manteca residents. Through this program, residents can pay for energy and

water-saving improvements to their home through their property taxes for up to 20 years with tax-

deductible interest. These improvements include solar panel installations, heating and cooling systems,

energy-saving windows and doors, roofing, and insulation.

San Joaquin County Human Services Agency offers a weatherization program. The program provides

energy saving measures and repairs to homes, apartments, and mobile homes. Households that qualify for

the program include: those receiving Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), Food Stamps, SSI or

SSP, Veterans and Survivors Pension; or households with incomes that do not exceed a certain limit

determined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Some of the energy savings measures

available are glass replacement, sash repair, ceiling insulation, minor home repair, low-flow showerheads,

door weather stripping, water heater blanket, duct wrap, switch and outlet gaskets, caulking, refrigerators,

and microwave ovens.

In addition to the local programs described above, the California Department of Community Services and

Development (CSD) administers the Federally-funded Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program

(LIHEAP). This program provides two types of assistance: Home Energy Assistance and Energy Crisis

Intervention. The first type of assistance is a direct payment to utility bills for qualified low-income

households. The second type of assistance is available to low-income households that are in a crisis

situation. CSD also offers free weatherization assistance, such as attic insulation, caulking, water heater

blankets, and heating and cooling system repairs to low-income households. Another service that

LIHEAP provides is energy budget counseling, education on basic energy efficiency practices, and

instruction on the proper use and maintenance of installed weatherization measures.

-



IV. POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS State housing law requires the City to review both governmental and non-governmental constraints to the

maintenance and production of housing for all income levels. Since local governmental actions can

restrict the development and increase the cost of housing, State law requires the Housing Element to

―address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the

maintenance, improvement, and development of housing‖ (Government Code Section 65583(c)(3)).

A. Potential Governmental Constraints

Local governments have little or no influence on the national economy or the Federal monetary policies

that influence it. Yet these two factors have some of the most significant impacts on the overall cost of

housing. The local housing market, however, can be encouraged and assisted locally. Part of the housing

element’s purpose is to require local governments to evaluate their past performance in this regard. By

reviewing local conditions and regulations that may impact the housing market, the local government can

prepare for future growth through actions that protect the public’s health and safety without unduly

adding to the cost of housing production.

It is in the public interest for the government to regulate development to protect the general welfare of the

community. At the same time government regulations can potentially constrain the supply of housing

available in a community if the regulations limit the opportunities to develop housing, impose

requirements that unnecessarily increase the cost to develop housing, or make the development process so

arduous as to discourage housing developers.

State law requires that housing elements contain an analysis of the governmental constraints on housing

maintenance, improvement, and development (Government Code, Section 65583(a)(4)). The Housing

Element must also analyze potential and actual constraints on the development, maintenance, and

improvement of housing for persons with disabilities.

The City of Manteca’s primary policies and regulations that could affect residential development and

housing affordability include land use controls, development processing procedures and fees, impact fees,

on- and off-site improvement requirements, and building and housing codes and enforcement. This

section discusses these standards and assesses whether any serve as a constraint to affordable housing

development.

1. Land Use Controls: General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning

General Plan land use designations and zoning usually create the most significant housing constraints in a

city or county. By definition, local land use controls constrain housing development by restricting

housing to certain sections of the city and by restricting the number of housing units that can be built on a

given parcel of land. The 2023 General Plan sets forth the City’s policies regarding local land

development. These policies, together with existing zoning regulations, establish the amount and

distribution of land allocated for different uses.

-




General Plan Land Use Designations

The City of Manteca General Plan establishes land use designations for all land within the City’s

boundaries. These land use designations specify the type of development the City will permit. The

General Plan land use designations include six designations that permit a range of residential development

types: Very Low Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High

Density Residential, Commercial Mixed Use, and Agriculture (see Table 42).

Table 42 General Plan Land Use Designations Allowing Residential Uses

Manteca 2007

LU Designation Code Description

Residential Density Range

1

Consistent Zoning

Districts

Very Low Density

Residential VLDR

Residences on larger lots and small, quasi-

agricultural activities

up to 2

units/acre

Residential

Estate (R-E)

Low Density

Residential LDR

Small lots and clustered lots as well as

conventional large lot detached residences

2.1 to 8

units/acre

One-Family

Dwelling (R-

1)

Medium Density

Residential MDR

Single-family homes, smaller scale multi-

family developments, including garden

apartments, townhouses, and cluster housing

8.1 to 15

units/acre

Limited

Multiple-

Family

Dwelling (R-

2)

High Density

Residential HDR Multi-family apartment style housing

15.1 to 25

units/acre

Multiple-

Family

Dwelling (R-

3)

Commercial

Mixed Use CMU

Accommodates a variety of purposes

including high density residential,

employment centers, retail commercial, and

professional offices

15.1 to 25

units/acre

Mixed Use

Commercial

(CMU)

Agriculture AG

Provides for agricultural uses and single-

family homes directly related to the

agricultural use of the property

N/A or varies

based on

situation

Agriculture

(AG)

Source: City of Manteca General Plan, 2003. 1Densities are based on dwelling units per gross acre.

The High Density Residential (HDR) and Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designations allow densities up

to 25 units per acre, which is adequate to accommodate affordable housing based on the ―default density

standard‖ of 20 units per acre for suburban jurisdictions such as Manteca, as set forth in Government

Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B).

Zoning

The City regulates the type, location, and scale of residential development primarily through the Zoning

Ordinance. Recently (2011), the City of Manteca updated its Zoning Ordinance to include permitted

minimum and maximum residential densities for given zoning districts (see table 43).

-



The setback, lot coverage, maximum high requirements, and density ranges for residential zones are also

shown below in Table 43. As the table shows, the zoning title only requires five foot side yard setbacks

for small-lot single-family developments.

Table 43 Setback, Lot Coverage, and Height Requirements Zones Allowing Residential Uses

Manteca 2015

Zone Front

Setback

Minimum Side

Setback

Minimum Rear

Setback

Minimum Open Space Per Dwelling

Units (sq. ft.) Maximum

Height

Density Range (dwelling units per

acre)

AG 50 15 201

35% 30 ft. 0 to 2 du/acre

RE 50 15 201 35% 30 ft. 0.5 to 2 du/acre

R-1 20 5 151 40% 35 ft. 2.1 to 8 du/acre

R-2 15 5 102 30% 35 ft. 8.1 to 15 du/acre

R-3 15 5 102 30% 45 ft. 15.1 to 25 du/acre

CMU 0 ft.3 0 ft.

3 0 ft.

3 No minimum 35 ft. 15.1 to 25 du/acre

CN 0 ft.3 0 ft.

3 0 ft.

3 No minimum 30 ft. N/A

CG 0 ft.3 0 ft.

3 0 ft.

3 No minimum 35 ft.

N/A

M-1 25 ft.3 10 ft.

3 25 ft.

3 No minimum No maximum N/A

Source: City of Manteca Municipal Code, Title 17: Zoning Code. Note: 1 Garages attached to a main building may encroach into the required rear yard by not more than 10 feet if it is less than 600

square feet in area; and it shares a common wall of 5 feet or more in length, or is located less than 6 feet from the main building and is

connected to the main building by a roofed area a minimum of 5 feet in width. 2 Minimum 30 percent of multifamily projects shall be designed for community open space and each unit shall include 400 square feet of

private open space. 3 When adjacent to a residential district, all structures shall match the setbacks of the adjacent residential district.

Residential Uses in Non-Residential Zoning Districts

The General Plan establishes a Commercial Mixed Use designation in which high-density residential uses

are encouraged as part of non-residential projects. The plan suggests that residential uses should make up

about 35 percent of a mixed-use zone; however, it also clearly states that individual sites may be

permitted to have significantly higher percentages of residential uses, and stand-alone multi-family

residential projects are encouraged in infill areas along Main Street, Airport Way, and Yosemite Avenue.

The Manteca Zoning Ordinance includes a Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designation that allows for the

following residential uses: Adult Day Care Home and Live-Work facility with a Minor Use Permit;

Caretaker Housing and Residential Care Facility with a Conditional Use Permit; Multifamily dwelling,

Three and four-family dwelling, Small employee housing, Small family day care home, Group residential,

Residential Care Home, Home Occupations, Supportive Housing, and Transitional Housing by right.

-




In addition, several other zoning designations allow for residential uses, including the following:

Neighborhood Commercial (CN): Adult Day Care Home and Emergency Shelters with a

Conditional Use Permit.

General Commercial (CG): Adult Day Care Home with a conditional use permit, and Emergency

Shelters, Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing by right.

Light Industrial (M1): Adult Day Care, Caretaker Housing, Emergency Shelters, and Transitional

Housing with a Conditional Use Permit.

Heavy Industrial (M2): Caretaker Housing with a Conditional Use Permit.

Public/Quasi Public (PQP): Caretaker Housing with a Conditional Use Permit.

Summary of Land Use Controls

Land use controls provided in the General Plan Land Use Designations and the Zoning Ordinance

influence housing production in several ways. The permitted and conditionally permitted uses in each

district guide new development and provide both developers and the public with an understanding of how

vacant land will develop in the future. This includes the density of development that will occur within a

particular zone, the compatibility of planned uses in a given area, and the range and type of buildings and

uses that will be located throughout the city.

The City adopted a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update in 2011. As part of the update, the City

expanded the zones where residential uses are allowed by-right and amended residential development

standards to further facilitate residential uses. The City has found that the permitted densities are adequate

to promote a variety of housing types in Manteca.The City is committed to ensuring that land use

designations and zoning standards promote quality development while providing for the health and safety

of Manteca residents.

2. Growth Management Program

The Community Growth Management Program (Growth Program) was adopted in 1988 in an effort to

alleviate development pressures by not allowing the residential growth rate to exceed 3.9 percent. The

Manteca City Council determined that it was necessary to coordinate sewer treatment capacities with the

number of building permits issued for residential, commercial, industrial, and other development to

ensure that new development does not exceed the amount of available sewer capacity.

When the Growth Program was adopted, the city’s population had been growing at a faster rate than both

San Joaquin County and the state. Between 1980 and 1987 the city’s population increased by

approximately 49 percent. By comparison, during the same period, San Joaquin County’s population

increased by approximately 25 percent and the state’s population increased by approximately 15 percent.

This population surge increased development pressures on the city’s sewer capacity and other public

services and facilities.

-



Following adoption of the General Plan in 2003, the City amended the Growth Management Ordinance to

be consistent with General Plan policies. Through the Growth Management Ordinance the City regulates

the number of housing units approved each year according to a growth management system that reflects

the availability of infrastructure, the City’s ability to provide public services, housing needs, and

employment growth. To ensure that development is consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and

policies, the City critiques and rates development proposals through a ―point rating system‖ to ensure that

those projects which best further the goals and policies of the General Plan may use the available sewage

treatment capacity (i.e., are awarded sewer allocations). The City distributes sewer allocations within the

3.9 percent growth cap for each year. Development projects with the highest number of points receive

first priority for project allocations. Applicants for project allocations must submit an application for point

rating by the second Friday of each March, to be considered for project allocations for that respective

calendar year. If there are remaining allocations, projects are considered during the second Friday in

October.

There are a variety of criteria upon which projects are rated. For example, small projects (consisting of

fewer than 24 units) receive 10 to 20 points based on the size of the project. Projects with affordable

ownership housing components for low- and moderate-income units receive 25 to 50 points based on the

affordability level and percentage of affordable units. Projects with affordable rental units for very low-

income households receive 40 to 50 points based on the percentage of affordable units. Mixed-use

projects receive 5 points. Points are only awarded to rental projects that provide very low-income

housing, and not low- or extremely low-income units. Additionally, design components are factored into

the point rating system. Depending on the features provided, such as covered front porches, enhanced

streetscape lighting, and distinctive neighborhood entrances, projects can receive up to 30 points. Overall,

the point rating system serves to further the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan.

One significant change in the Growth Management Ordinance during the 2004 amendment was to install

a preference for affordable housing in the residential permit allocation process. Any residential project

that provides 75 percent of its units as affordable for low- and very low-income residents is exempt from

the growth cap. In addition, applicants for project allocations for affordable housing projects can submit

applications for point rating at any time in the year, and are not limited to the March date. Second units

are also exempt from the growth cap.

Government Code Section 65589.7(c) states ―A public agency or private entity that provides water or

sewer services shall not deny or condition the approval of an application for services to, or reduce the

amount of services applied for by, a proposed development that includes housing units affordable to lower

income households unless the public agency or private entity makes specific written findings…‖ The

Code section goes on to list five possible conditions that are allowable for the denial, condition, or

reduction in services available to a development, including documented water shortage emergencies,

compliance orders that prohibits new water connections issued by the State Department of Health

Services, and documented insufficient treatment or collection capacity.

The Growth Management Ordinance is inconsistent with State law since the current exemption for the

affordable component of proposed projects only applies to projects that provide 75 percent or more lower-

income housing. Program H-I-2 commits the City to reviewing the Growth Management and clarifying

that all affordable units are exempt.

-




The Growth Management Ordinance has not acted as a constraint on the supply of housing in Manteca.

The existing Housing Element is a comprehensive update of the 2004 Housing Element. The 7.5 year

planning period ran from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2014 and included the following Regional Housing

Needs Allocation: 4,054 units, including 850 very low-, 633 low-, 808 moderate-, and 1,762 above

moderate-income units. Between 2008 and 2014, the City of Manteca issued building permits for 2,308

units, including permits for 2,099 single-family detached units, 5 single-family attached units, and 204

multifamily units (see Table 44). While Manteca, like most jurisdictions, did not reach its affordability

goals during the previous Housing Element planning period, the City did not exceeded its total unit goal

of 4,054 units. The Growth Management Ordinance did not impede the City’s progress in meeting the

RHNA.

Table 44 Residential Building Permits Issued

Manteca 2008- 2014

Residential Unit Type 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

Single-Family

Dwellings (Detached) 240 331 249 273 282 297 427 2,099

Single-Family

Dwellings (Attached) 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5

Multifamily Units 0 0 52 152 0 0 0 204

Total 240 331 306 425 282 297 427 2,308

Source: City of Manteca, Community Development Department, April 2015.

The Growth Management Ordinance will not constrain the production of housing during the current

Housing Element planning period. Table 45 indicates that the Growth Management Ordinance, which

limits population growth to 3.9 percent, would allow the population to increase by as much as 30,057

between 2014 and 2023. Full development of all dwellings in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation

would result in a population increase of about 13,819 during approximately the same time frame (January

1, 2014 to December 31, 2023).13

Therefore, the Growth Management Ordinance is not a constraint in

meeting the housing needs for Manteca as established in the Regional Housing Needs Plan.

13

Population increase of about 13,819 was derived by multiplying the 2014-2023 RHNA (4,401 units) by Manteca’s

average household size of 3.14 persons per household.

-



Table 45 Population Projection at 3.9 Percent Annual Growth

Manteca 2008-2014

Year Projected Population

(Based on 3.9% increase)

2014 72,880

2015 75,722

2016 78,675

2017 81,744

2018 84,932

2019 88,244

2020 91,686

2021 95,261

2022 98,977

2023 102,937

Total Potential Increase 2014-2023 30,057

Source: California Department of Finance; Mintier Harnish, April 2015.

The number of dwelling permits allocated under the Growth Management Ordinance is sufficient to meet

the projected housing needs in the city as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. In

addition, affordable housing units are exempt from the growth cap. The Growth Management Ordinance

is not a constraint in meeting the projected housing needs for existing and future Manteca residents.

The Growth Management Ordinance does not significantly impact the cost and affordability of housing.

Point rating applications are rated by the director within 30 days of receipt of the application. According

to the City Code, sewer allocations last for 24 months of the date of the final award and expire if project

applicants do not pull building permits within this time frame. Projects that apply for sewer allocations

through the standard Growth Management Ordinance process pay $560 per application with each request.

Currently (2015), affordable housing projects are exempt from the sewer allocation fees, and the City has

added a program in the Housing Element to exempt all affordable units from the sewer allocation system

and provide priority sewer capacity to affordable units.

The City’s Revised Growth Management Ordinance includes a point rating system, which requires

developers and their projects to compete with one another on an annual basis, with only the highest

scoring projects being awarded allocations. During the housing development boom of the 2000s, there

was a high demand for sewer allocations, which created uncertainty within the development community

over their ability to complete multi-phase housing developments. This uncertainty prompted the

developers to request development agreements, rather than participating in the Point Rating process.

These development agreements have benefited the developers by establishing the certainty they desired,

and benefited the City through the collection of additional fees, upgraded quality of public amenities, and

by establishing an agreed-upon timing of the distribution of sewer allocations within the 3.9 percent

growth limitation. The City charged a negotiated fee per unit to process development agreements in

exchange for sewer allocations. While this was an added cost for developers, it created certainty that a

project would receive sewer allocations and decreased the processing time. During the housing boom,

-




when there was significant demand for sewer allocations, developers were willing to pay for development

agreements in exchange for certainty and faster processing; however, the City is moving away from the

use of development agreements. One constraint of the use of development agreements is that negotiations

fell short in establishing affordable housing within the many market-rate developments approved over the

past several years.

During the downturn in the residential housing market, the demand on the City’s sewage capacity has

been reduced and many of the planned projects have either postponed construction or forfeited their

entitlements to sewer capacity. Towards the end of the last decade (2000-2010) the Manteca Wastewater

Treatment Plant underwent expansions that increased capacity at the plant. The most recent expansion

phase, Phase 3, easily provided for the sewage capacity of planned residential development for several

years. Given this turn of events, future use of development agreements to secure sewage capacity will be

unnecessary, reducing if not eliminating the potential impacts to housing supply, cost, and affordability.

Currently (2015) developers have the option of requesting a development agreement as the City no longer

rquires the use of development agreements. More recently (2015) projects have obtained sewer

allocations through the standard application of the Growth Management system.

Community Development staff should work closely with the City Council in the future to ensure that

sewer allocations, whether made within or outside of project development agreements, are made on the

basis of the existing point rating system in the Growth Management Ordinance and provide exemptions

for lower-income units.

3. Building Codes and Enforcement

Building codes and their enforcement influence the style, quality, size, and costs of residential

development. Such codes can increase the cost of housing and impact the feasibility of rehabilitating older

properties that must be upgraded to current code standards. In this manner, building codes and their

enforcement can act as a constraint on the supply of housing and its affordability.

The City of Manteca has adopted the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), based on the International

Building Code. The minimum requirements of the CBC and other model codes may have added to the

cost of housing over the years. However, governmental agencies at all levels as well as organizations

representing building officials have decided that these requirements are necessary to achieve a minimum

level of health and safety.

As with most jurisdictions, the City responds to code enforcement problems largely on a complaint basis.

The usual process is to conduct a field investigation by the Police Department after a complaint has been

reported to the Building Department. If the complaint is found to be valid, the immediacy and severity of

the problem is assessed.

The City’s building codes are consistent with the codes applied in other jurisdictions throughout

California and do not negatively impact the construction of affordable housing. There may be

opportunities to increase efficiency and effectiveness of code enforcement process by limiting code

enforcement duties to the building department, hiring additional Code Enforcement Officers, and/or by

strenghtnening the coordination among the City divisions in charge of enforcement.

-



4. Processing and Permit Procedures

Similar to other jurisdictions, the City has several procedures it requires developers to follow for

processing development entitlements and building permits. Although the permit approval process must

conform to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 (et seq.)), housing proposed in

the city is subject to one or more of the following review processes: environmental review, zoning,

subdivision review, and building permit approval. However many of the City’s review procedures are

handled at the staff level.

Table 46 shows permitted and conditionally permitted residential uses by zoning district in Manteca. The

need for a Minor Use Permit on single-family homes in the R-2 and R-3 zone serve to reserve land in

these zones for the higher-intensity residential uses for which they are intended rather that allow under-

utilization by lower-density residential uses.

For conditional use permits the decision-making authority may approve or conditionally approve an

application for a use permit. Conditional Use Permits shall be granted only when the decision-making

authority (Planning Commission) determines that the proposed use or activity complies with the

following findings (17.10.130):

1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable Specific Plan, and all

applicable provisions.

2. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will not, under the

circumstances of the particular case (location, size, design, and operating characteristics), be

detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or

working in the neighborhood of such use or to the general welfare of the city.

3. The proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the applicable district or districts.

4. The proposed use meets the minimum requirements applicable to the use and complies with all

other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations of the City and State.

For the approval of nonconforming uses, a conditional use permit shall be granted only when the

designated Approving Authority determines that the proposed use or activity complies with the items

listed above, plus the following:

5. The benefit to the public health, safety, or welfare exceeds the detriment inherent in the

expansion of nonconformity.

6. The modified or expanded nonconforming structure or uses would not be incompatible with

reasonably foreseeable uses as allowed under the applicable zoning regulations.

7. The modified or expanded nonconforming structure or use would be consistent with the General

Plan.

Additionally whenever authorized by ordinance, the Approving Authority may issue a Minor Use Permit

when they find the following (17.10.070):

-




1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable Specific Plan.

2. The proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the applicable district or districts.

3. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public

or to property and resident in the vicinity.

4. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, complies with

applicable zoning regulations, Planned Development, Master Plan, or Specific Plan provisions,

Improvement Standards, and other applicable standards and regulations adopted by the City.

Table 46 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses

Manteca 2015

Residential Use Type A R-E R-1 R-2 R-3 CMU BIP CN CG M1 M2 OS P PQP

Adult Day Care Home - A A A A M - C C C - - - -

Caretaker Housing A A A A A C - - - C C - - C

Dwelling, Multi-Family - - - A A A - - - - - - - -

Dwelling, Second Unit1 A A A A A - - - - - - - - -

Dwelling, Single-Family A A A M M - - - - - - - - -

Dwelling, Two-Family - - - A A - - - - - - - - -

Dwelling, Three- and Four-

Family - - - A A A - - - - - - - -

Emergency Shelter2 - - - - - - - C A C - - - -

Employee Housing, Large A - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Employee Housing, Small A A A A A A - - - - - - - -

Group Residential - - - A A A - - - - - - - -

Live-Work Facility - - - - - M - - - - - - - -

Mobile Home Park - - - C C - - - - - - - - -

Residential Care Facility - - - C C C - - - - - - - -

Residential Care Home (6

or fewer persons) A A A A A A - - - - - - - -

Single-Room Occupancy

(SRO) Facility - - - - C - - - - - - - - -

Supportive Housing A A A A A A - - A - - - - -

Transitional Housing A A A A A A - - A C - - - - Notes: A = Allowed use; C = Conditional; M = Minor Use Permit; ―-‖ = Not permitted 1 Additional regulations for Second Dwelling Units found in Municipal Code Chapter 17.82. 2 Additional regulations for Emergency Shelters are found in Municipal Code Chapter 17.76.

Source: City of Manteca Zoning Code, Chapter 17.20 Establishment of Zoning Districts and Land Use Classification System.

The City uses a Planned Development (PD) overlay district to establish a process for the consideration

and regulation of areas suitable for proposed comprehensive development with detailed development

-



plans and of those areas that require special planning to provide for appropriate planned development in

harmony with the natural features and other environmental consideration. The PD overlay is required in

conjunction with any rezone request for a PD overlay zone designation. To qualify for rezoning, projects

must include developed or underdeveloped property with one or more contiguous parcels totaling a

minimum of two acres in size. Projects of less than two acres may be considered when determined that

the development area is underutilized or problematic (e.g., infill, reuse, redevelopment) and that the

surrounding area will be better served by the project. Planned development projects are reviewed and

acted on by the City Council and a public hearing is required.

As described previously, the City requires all residential projects to apply for a point rating for sewer

allocations, which is intended to rank projects based on sound planning and development principles. In

recent years the City Council has not enforced the point rating system and instead negotiated project

requirements through development agreements. The development agreements benefit developers by

reassuring them that their entire project has sewer allocations and benefit the city by creating high quality

developments.

Project review and approval processes are comparable to most small municipalities and do not create

additional costs for most housing development. The City Community Development Department and

Public Works Department provide the primary review of development applications. The entitlement

process for residential development is relatively direct and involves only subdivision design and

improvement plan check. A Major Site Plan and Design Review entitlement is required for new

multifamily and nonresidential uses and structures. Additionally, Major Site Plan and Design Review is

required for changes in use or modifications to existing multifamily and nonresidential uses and structures

that are not except from state environmental review requirements as outlined in the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission is the Approving Authority of Major Site

Plans and Design Reviews.

-




The Design Review does not apply to the allowed use and is limited to the design and layout of the

project. In conducting Design Review, the Approving Authority is to make all of the following findings to

approve or conditionally approve a Site Plan and Design Review application:

1. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, complies with

applicable zoning regulations, Planned Development, Master Plan or Specific Plan provisions,

Improvement Standards, and other applicable standards and regulations adopted by the City;

2. The proposed project will not create conflicts with vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian transportation

modes of circulation;

3. The site layout (orientation and placement of buildings and parking areas), as well as the

landscaping, lighting, and other development features, is compatible with and complements the

existing surrounding environment and ultimate character of the area under the General Plan; and

4. The proposed architecture, including the character, scale, and quality of the design, relationship

with the site and other buildings, building materials, colors, screening of exterior appurtenances,

exterior lighting and signing, and similar elements, establishes a clear design concept and is

compatible with the character of buildings on adjoining and nearby properties.

The Approving Authority may modify plans, in whole or in part, apply conditions of approval, or require

guarantees to ensure compliance with the Design Review requirements to prevent adverse or detrimental

impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the Approving Authority may require that the plans

address issues related to ingress, egress, internal traffic, circulation, lighting, signage, landscaping and

screening, architectural design, and other factors to ensure that the project is compatible with the

surrounding neighborhood if a potential conflict exists, or to otherwise comply with relevant design

guidelines.

The time to process an application for residential development can vary significantly depending on the

quality of the information submitted with the application, the complexity of the project and many other

factors. Table 47 shows the typical processing times for different permitting procedures and Table 48

shows the typical procedures required for different types of residential projects and the total typical

processing time for each project type.

-



Table 47 Timeline for Permit Procedures

Manteca 2015

Type of Approval or Permit Typical Processing Time Approval Body*

Annexation 26 weeks City Council

Growth Management Point Rating 4 weeks max CD Director

Density Bonus 18 weeks City Council

Specific Plan 52 weeks City Council

Subdivision Map 12-16 weeks City Council

Rezone 26 weeks City Council

Zoning Conformance 1 week CD Director

Similar Use Determination 1 week CD Director

Reasonable Accommodations 4 to 6 weeks CD Director

Site Plan and Design Review (Minor) 8-12 weeks CD Director

Site Plan and Design Review (Major) 12 to 16 weeks Planning Commission

Minor Use Permit 4 to 6 weeks CD Director

Conditional Use Permit (major use

permit) 16 weeks Planning Commission

Temporary Use Permit 1 week CD Director

Master Sign Program 4 to 6 weeks CD Director

Minor Zone Modification 4 to 6 weeks

CD Director or

Planning Commission1

Minor Plan Modification 8 to 12 weeks

CD Director or

Planning Commission1

Variance 6 to 8 weeks Planning Commission

Planned Development 26 weeks City Council

Development Agreement 26 weeks City Council

Master Plan 52 weeks City Council

Prezoning 24 weeks City Council

Zoning Amendment (Text and Map)

8-10 weeks for text;

24 weeks for map City Council

General Plan Amendment (Text and Map) 26 weeks City Council

Source: City of Manteca Community Development Department, 2015. Notes:

*Final Decision-Making Body 1 Final decision-making body is the same as the original decision-making body for original plan proposed for

modification.

-




Table 48 Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type

Manteca 2009

Single Family

Unit Single Family Unit

(Master Plan) Subdivision** Multifamily**

Building Permit

Plan Check Building Permit Tentative Map

Site Plan & Design

Review

Growth Management* Growth Management*

Initial Study/Mitigated

Neg Dec Categorical Exemption

Final Map

Initial Study/Mitigated

Neg Dec

Development

Agreement (Optional)

Development Agreement

(Optional)

Est. Total

Processing Time

20-days, 10-days

per resubmittal 10 days 6-months

8 to 10 weeks

w/categorical exemption.

10 to 12 weeks w/MND Source: City of Manteca Community Development Department, 2009.

*Growth Management Allocation Applications are accepted twice a year in March and October.

** Program H-I-4 will exempt infill development from Growth Management process.

Combined, these processes can easily add up to several months. In order to avoid project delays, Planning

Division staff works with developers throughout the process, presenting options such as reducing plan

check time by working with Building and Safety Division staff near the end of the entitlement process to

ensure that plans meet code requirements when they are submitted.

Processing and permit procedures do not constitute a development constraint in Manteca.

5. Development Fees and Other Exactions

The City collects various fees from developers to cover the costs of processing permits and providing

necessary services and infrastructure. Additional fees and/or time may be necessary for required

environmental reviews, depending on the location and nature of a project. Certain residential projects that

require General Plan amendments, zoning code changes, or other planning-related functions require fees

in addition to those listed above. Some of these typical fees are summarized in Table 49.

Building permit and planning fees are the method the City uses to defray the cost of the Planning and

Building Departments. Obviously these fees impact the cost of constructing affordable housing. Basic

planning and building fees for the City of Manteca are listed below. Building permit fees are based on the

total valuation of the property. Because of this, the exact building and planning fee rate for a ―typical‖

multifamily and single-family is difficult to define.

Since the density of development generally influences the amount of infrastructure needed to serve new

development, many of the City’s impact fees vary by land use. For example, the Government Building

Facilities Fee for low- or very low-density residential development is higher than the fee for medium- or

high-density residential. Since location also influences the amount of infrastructure investment needed,

most of the infrastructure fees (e.g., water, sewer, storm drainage, transportation) also vary by location,

size, or ―zone.‖

-



Since the previous Housing Element Update, the City revised how the fees for water, storm drainage, and

sewer are collected. The Public Facilities Improvement Plan (PFIP) Water Fees, for example, were

originally charged on a per unit basis for residential users and on a net acreage basis for other commercial

and industrial users. In 2013 the City changed it to base it on the size of meter installed, regardless of

development type. Additionally the original PFIP broke the City into five financing zones, and charged

per unit fees for residential users and per 1,000 square feet for non-residential users. The 2013 PFIP

update consolidated some of the financing zones and changed the fee charge to a per unit fee for

residential users, but non-residential users will be charged upon usage, which will be estimated based on

each development’s characteristics. The PFIP fees for storm drainage are based on the land use type and

the zone in which the parcel is located. Storm drainage fees were not changed during the 2013 PFIP

update; however, some of the zones, which are largely built out, have been consolidated to simplify

accounting and administration.

Table 49 Planning Fees

Manteca Effective March 18, 2014

Fee Type Fee Amount

Annexation

Annexation $12,482

Prezone/Rezoning (0-5 acres) (per project) $5,578

Prezone/Rezoning (6-20 acres) (per project) $6,508

Prezone/Rezoning (21+ acres) $9,368

Appeals

Appeals (applicant or non-applicant) $2,916

Building Plan Check

Commercial, Multifamily, Mixed $384

Commercial (TI-Occupancy) $45

Residential (Addition-Minor) $22

Single Family Dwelling (Tract-Plot Plan) $11

Development Agreement

Development Agreement $6,858

Amendment (Administration) $891

Amendment (PH) $1,392

Annual Review $843

Environmental Assessment

EIR (City Administration and Consultant fees) $17,109

Initial Study – Negative Declaration/MND $3,150

General Plan

General Plan Amendment (per project) $7,116

Planned Development

0-10 acres $8,518

10.1-20 acres $11,502

-




Table 49 Planning Fees

Manteca Effective March 18, 2014

Fee Type Fee Amount

20.1+ acres $13,287

Amendment (Major/Minor) $5,580

Sewer Allocation

Point Rating Application Residential $560

Point Rating Application Non-Residential $560

Site Plan Review

Preliminary Site Plan Review $1,518

Residential 2-4 units $3,199

Residential 5-15 units $5,102

Residential 16 or more units $8,800

Commercial/Industrial – one acre or less $5,824

Commercial/Industrial – 1.1-12 acres $7,950

Commercial/Industrial – 12.1 acres or more $14,202

Minor Plan Modification $1,553

Specific Plans

Specific Plan/Master Plan Amendment (Major) $10,907

Specific Plan/Master Plan Amendment (Minor) $2,413

Specific Plan/Master Plan Preparation, Processing, and

Review $27,502

Subdivisions

Tentative Parcel Map $4,160

Tentative Subdivision Map Review (5-50 lots)

(per project) $7,210

Tentative Subdivision Map Review (51-100 lots)


Tentative Subdivision Map Review (101 lots or more)


Tentative Map Extension $2,022

Use Permits

Major Use Permit $4,455

Minor Use Permit $2,261

Zoning

Minor Zone Modification $1,630

Variance $4,306

Zoning Code Text Amendment $5,354

Zoning Research Letter $65

Source: City of Manteca, July 2015.

-



Table 50 summarizes the typical development fees in the city of Manteca, and provides ranges for fees

that are based on zones. The fees for single-family residential development are those collected in low-

density zones, and the fees for multifamily development are those collected in the high-density zones. The

City does not currently (2009) offer fee waivers, reductions, or deferrals for affordable housing. As shown

on Table 50, the development impact fees for a low-density single-family unit is a minimum of $35,727

per unit and a maximum of $39,372. The development impact fees for a 20-unit, high-density multifamily

project is a minimum of $440,984 per project, or about $22,049 per unit, and a maximum of $488,886 per

project, or about $25,445 per unit.

There are other impact fees for agriculture and open space that are charged by the gross acre. The San

Joaquin Council of Governments collects the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat and Open Space

Conservation Plan (SJMSCP) fee to mitigate the loss of important habitat and open space, including

paying for acquisition of preserve lands and associated transaction costs; paying for monitoring and

restoration and/or enhancement of preserve lands; paying for endowment for long-term management of

preserve lands; and paying for initial and ongoing administration of the SJMSCP. The fee applies when

development converts farmland and other habitat to private urban use. Table 51 shows the 2015 Multi-

Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan fee schedule.

-




Table 50 Development Impact Fees1

Manteca

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2015

Fees

Single-Family Unit (Low Density)

Minimum


Maximum

Multi-Family Project (High Density)

Minimum


Maximum

Building permit fee (Plan Check)2

(per unit for single family; square footage for multifamily) $167 $167 $9,899 $9,899

Building permit fee (Inspection)2

(per unit for single family; square footage for multifamily) $948 $948 $6,012 $6,012

Point Rating Application Fee and Sewer Allocation Fee3

$560 $560 $560 $560

Strong Motion Instrumentation Program Fee4 $22.32 $22.32 $117.76 $117.76

Park Acquisition and Improvement Fee (per unit) $2,447 $2,447 $33,880 $33,880

CBSC Green Building Fund Fee5 $7 $7 $17 $17

Residential Construction Business License Tax (per unit) $900 $900 $12,500 $12,500

Fees for New Connections to City Water (based on meter size)6

$4,196 $4,196 $22,119 $22,119

Well Water PFIP (Public Facilities Implementation Plan) Fees6 $3,251 $3,251 $17,332 $17,332

Sewer Connection Charges–Phase 3 (per unit) $3,961 $3,961 $66,020 $66,020

Sewer PFIP Fee (per unit) $292 $1,808 $4,280 $26,460

Storm Drainage PFIP Fee

(per unit for single family; per net acre for multifamily) $49 $923 $541 $10,003

Transportation PFIP Fee (per unit) $1,468 $2,723 $16,520 $32,780

School Impact Fees7 (per square foot of building) $5,376 $5,376 $67,200 $67,200

San Joaquin County Facilities Fee (per unit) $1,890 $1,890 $32,400 $32,400

San Joaquin County Regional Transportation Impact Fee (per unit) $2,988.88 $2,988.88 $35,866.60 $35,866.60

Fire Facilities Fee8 $432 $432 $6,400 $6,400

Major Equipment Purchase Fee (per unit) $350 $350 $7,000 $7,000

Government Building Facilities Fee (per unit) $4,362.53 $4,362.53 $65,483.80 $65,483.80

Plan Retention Fee9 $55.75 $55.75 $795.55 $795.55

Water Quality Control Facility, Phase 3 Completion Charge

(per unit) $2,003 $2,003 $36,040 $36,040

-



Table 50 Development Impact Fees1

Manteca

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2015

Fees


Minimum


Maximum


Minimum


Maximum

Total

$35,727 $39,372 $440,984 $488,886

Notes: 1Single-family fees based on a low-density, 1,200 square foot (living area) single-family, single-story detached entry level home with three bedrooms, two full baths, and an attached

two-car garage (400 square feet) in a 50-lot subdivision for a total of 1,600 square feet. Multi-family fees based on a single high-density 20,000 square foot 20-unit apartment building, 1,000

square feet per unit on a one-acre property.

Electrical, Plumbing, and Mechanical fees are included in the building permit fee and not charged separately. 2Fees are not based on the valuation of a structure, instead it is based upon the square footage of the structure. Based on Group C: IIB, IIIB, and VB Construction Types. 3Sewer allocation fees are only charged to projects that apply for sewer allocations through the standard Growth Management Ordinance process and do not have Development Agreements.

The fee is collected per project regardless of the project’s density. 4 0.00013 x building valuation for single family; 0.00028 x building valuation for multifamily. Single-family structure value: $171,719; Multifamily structure value: $420,577. 5Based on valuation: $1 for each $25,000 ($25,001-$50,000: $2 | $50,001-$75,000: $3 |$75,001-$100,000: $4 | $100,001 and up: add $1 for each additional $25,000. Single-family structure

value: $171,719; Multifamily structure value: $420,577. 6Assumes a 2‖ meter connection for multifamily and a 5/8 x 3/4 meter connection for single family.

7 Non-Mello Roos District Level II at $3.36 per sf bldg.

8 $0.27 per sf. bldg. for single-family; $0.32 for multifamily

9 5% of Building Permit, including Plan Check and Inspection

Sources: City of Manteca; Manteca Unified School District; San Joaquin County, 2015.

-




Table 51 San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open

Space Plan Fees San Joaquin County

Effective January 1, 2015

Habitat Type Fee Per Acre

Multi-Purpose Open Space $7,281

Natural $14,543

Agriculture $14,543

Vernal Pool, uplands $42,784

Vernal Pool, wetted $85,631

Source: City of Manteca, April 2015.

In March 2013 the San Joaquin Partnership published the fourth publication of the Regional Development

Fee Comparative Analysis based on Fee Schedules effective July 2012. According to the comparative

analysis, development impact fees in Manteca are below average compared to other jurisdictions in the

San Joaquin Valley, including all the incorporated and unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County,

excluding the city of Escalon. The average total estimated development fee cost for the 21 jurisdictions

included in the comparative analysis was $54,527, while the average total estimated development fee cost

for all incorporated and unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County (excluding Escalon) was $44,235.

Specifically Manteca’s development fees were lower compared to the cities of Tracy, Stockton, and

Ripon, but higher compared to the cities of Lathrop, Lodi, and the unincorporated county. There may be

an opportunity for the City to offer reduced fees for affordable housing projects through development

agreements.

6. On/Off Site Improvement Requirements

The City has residential development requirements for residential streets, sidewalks, solar access,

landscaping, walls, street lighting, and parking. The City adopted these standards to ensure that minimum

levels of design and construction quality are maintained and adequate levels of street and facility

improvements are provided. Most development standards are contained in the City’s Municipal Code

Title 17 Zoning, Article III Site Planning Standards.

While many of the City’s development standards are similar to those in other jurisdictions, there may be

some standards that exceed the level necessary to ensure adequate circulation and parking, drainage,

environmental protection, and protection from visual nuisances. The City’s standards are summarized

below. The standards included in this summary are those with the greatest potential to affect housing

costs.

-



Special Fence and Wall Requirements:

Public Frontage Fencing of Nonresidential and Multifamily Projects: Where fencing is proposed

along public frontages of nonresidential and multifamily projects, such fencing shall be open

view unless otherwise required to be solid for noise attenuation. Open view fencing shall also be

required when located adjacent to open space areas.

Screening of Commercial or Industrial Uses Adjacent to Residential Zones: Commercial and

industrial uses shall be screened from adjacent residential and agricultural zones by a masonry

wall with a minimum height of seven feet to screen the commercial or industrial use. This

requirement is not intended to preclude the development of pedestrian/bicycle access points

between commercial and residential, or agricultural zones.

The City requires developers of subdivisions to construct solid masonry walls adjacent to certain

roadway types and land uses. The City requires a six-foot wall on all rear and side property lines zoned

for single-family residential uses in subdivisions that are adjacent to major collector or arterial roadways.

When single-family residential uses are adjacent to property zoned for multi-family, commercial, or

industrial uses, the City requires an eight-foot wall. A seven-foot wall is required on all property lines

abutting a city park.

Design Requirements for Specific Types of Landscaping:

Residential Landscape: For single-family and two-family residential Zoning Districts:

For lots of land on which a building permit was issued on or before 7/15/2015, at least 35

percent of the actual front yard shall be landscaped, and for lots of land on which a building

permit was issued on or after 7/16/2015, at least 35 percent of the actual front yard shall be

landscaped and no more than 25 percent of the actual front yard or street-side yard shall be

turf.

Project Entry Landscaping: Entries to multitenant projects, including both residential and

nonresidential, shall be designed as a special statement reflective of the character and scale of the

project to establish identify for tenants, visitors, and patrons. Flowering access plantings and

specimen trees shall be used to reinforce the entry statement.

Wireless Telecommunication Facilities: Landscaping shall be planted around the tower and

related equipment to buffer abutting residential Zoning Districts or uses, and to buffer public

trails.

Buffering Between Uses: A landscape buffer shall be provided by nonresidential and multifamily

uses adjacent to single-family uses. Buffer areas shall include a minimum 10-foot-wide planter

strip and with shrubs on both deciduous and evergreen trees. Landscaping shall be used to

separate buildings from parking and vehicle circulation areas were practical.

Residential Streets: Chapter 16.23 Land Division Improvements of the Manteca Municipal Code

describes the requirements for improvements, improvement plans, agreements, security, construction, and

inspection related to the division of land.

-




The City requires full-width street improvements including curb, gutter, matching paving, and parking

lanes. Modified street widths for public streets are allowed in certain circumstances; however, the

minimum curb-to-curb width may not be reduced beyond 28 feet (assuming parking on one side) or 36

feet (assuming parking on two sides). Modifications to the standards are allowed with a Planned

Development (PD).

Sidewalks, Bicycle Paths, and Transit Facilities: Requirements for sidewalks, bicycle paths, and transit

facilities are determined on a case-by-case basis and are not required of all projects. However, in the

recent past, the City required an approved 300-unit apartment complex to construct a five-foot sidewalk

and 12-foot wide Class I bicycle path along the property frontage. In addition, the City required that the

developer install two bus turnouts to provide residents with access to public transit.

Parking: Since off-street parking often requires large amounts of land, parking requirements are one of

the development standards that can most negatively impact the development of affordable housing. Off-

street parking requirements increase the cost of development, limiting the funds available for providing

housing. Most municipalities have adopted parking standards that exceed the actual parking needs of the

population.

Manteca’s off-street parking standards for residential uses are summarized in Table 52.

Table 52 Required Off-Street Parking Spaces

Manteca 2015

Residential Use Parking Requirements

Single-family dwelling 2 covered spaces for each dwelling

Secondary Residential Units 1 space/secondary unit

Small-Lot Single-Family 1 covered space/dwelling

Townhome, Condominium, and

Apartment

1 covered space/dwelling plus 1 other space/dwelling;

Plus 0.25 spaces per unit for guest parking for projects

with ≥ 7 units

Boardinghouses and Group Quarters

(and SROs) 1 space/sleeping room or 1/100 square feet sleeping area

Residential Care Home 1 space/3 beds

Source: Manteca Municipal Code, Chapter 17 Zoning, Section 17.52.050 Number of Parking

Spaces Required.

The City allows reductions in the required number of off-street spaces for uses, such as elderly housing or

retirement homes, on a case-by-case basis where the developer can demonstrate that automobile use or

ownership is significantly lower than for other types of dwellings. Through the density bonus ordinance,

the City allows parking standard reductions to developers of affordable housing.

There may be opportunities to reduce existing development standards, including parking standards, to

encourage the development of affordable housing. For example, the number of parking spaces required in

apartments could be based on the number of bedrooms to reduce parking requirements for smaller units.

-



7. Open Space and Park Requirements

Open space and park requirements can decrease the affordability of housing by increasing developer fees

and/or decreasing the amount of land available on a proposed site for constructing units. Chapter 3.20 of

Manteca’s Municipal Code describes open space and park requirements. All housing units constructed in

the city must pay a park acquisition and improvement fee to fund the development of neighborhood and

community parks. As of April 2015 the fee is $2,447 per single-family unit and $1,694 per multifamily

unit. In a planned unit development and mobile home park, developers can get credit against the fee

requirements for private open space that is provided within the development for recreational use. To be

credited as dedicated open space, the development must provide at least 250 square feet of usable area per

dwelling unit.

Manteca follows Quimby Act requirements (Government Code Section 664477 et. Seq.) for park land

dedications in new subdivisions. The City also requires new subdivisions to pay park acquisition and

improvement fees to fund the development of neighborhood and community parks. Subdivisions of 20

acres or more have the option of dedicating land for park and recreation purposes in lieu of paying the

fees. The dedicated open space must be at least three acres and the fair market value of the land must be at

least equivalent to the fees that would otherwise be required. The City’s land dedication requirements are

based on the standard of five acres of park and recreational land per 1,000 persons, and are consistent

with the Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan.

The park dedication requirement, the park improvement fees, and the open space requirements do not

represent excessive constraints on residential development. The City follows the Quimby Act for

dedication of open space. These requirements do not impede the City’s ability to meet its overall share of

the region’s housing needs.

8. Density Bonus

A density bonus is the allocation of development rights that allows a parcel to accommodate additional

square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. On

January 1, 2005, Senate Bill (SB) 1818 revised California’s density bonus statutes by reducing the

number of affordable units that a developer must provide in order to receive a density bonus. The bill also

increased the maximum density bonus to 35 percent. The new minimum affordability requirements are as

follows:

The project is eligible for a 20 percent density bonus if at least 5 percent of the units are

affordable to very low-income households, or 10 percent of the units are affordable to low-

income households; and

The project is eligible to receive a 5 percent density bonus if 10 percent of for-purchase units are

affordable to moderate-income households.

The law also established a sliding scale, which determines the additional density that a project can

receive. A developer can receive the maximum density bonus of 35 percent when the project provides

either 5 percent very low-income units, 10 percent low-income units, or 10 percent moderate-income

-




units. In 2005 the California Legislature passed SB 435. This legislation served to clarify California’s

density bonus law by explaining that a project can only receive one density bonus.

Prior to SB 1818 and SB 435 jurisdictions were required to grant one incentive, such as financial

assistance or development standard reductions, to developers of affordable housing. The new laws require

that cities and counties grant more incentives depending on the percentage of affordable units developed.

Incentives include reductions in zoning standards, reductions in development standards, reductions in

design requirements, and other reductions in costs for developers. Projects that satisfy the minimum

affordable criteria for a density bonus are entitled to one incentive from the local government. Depending

on the amount of affordable housing provided, the number of incentives can increase to a maximum of

three incentives from the local government. If a project uses less than 50 percent of the permitted density

bonus, the local government must provide an additional incentive.

Additionally, the new laws provide density bonuses to projects that donate land for residential use. An

applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development shall be entitled to a 15

percent increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning

ordinance and land use element of the general plan for the entire development. For each 1 percent

increase above the minimum 10 percent land donation, the density bonus shall be increased by 1 percent,

up to a maximum of 35 percent. The Applicant shall be eligible for the increased density bonus if the

following conditions are met:

The applicant donates and transfers the land no later than the date of approval of the final

subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application;

The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being transferred are sufficient to

permit construction of units affordable to very low-income households in an amount not less than

10 percent of the number of residential units of the proposed development; and,

The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of at

least 40 units, has the appropriate general plan designation, is appropriately zoned for

development as affordable housing, and is or will be served by adequate public facilities and

infrastructure.

SB 1818 also imposes statewide parking standards that a jurisdiction must grant upon request from a

developer of an affordable housing project that qualifies for a density bonus. The developer may request

these parking standards even if they do not request the density bonus. The new parking standards are

summarized in Table 53. These numbers are the total number of parking spaces including guest parking

and handicapped parking.

-



Table 53 Statewide Parking Standards for Affordable Housing

California 2007

Number of Bedrooms Number of On-Site

Parking Spaces

0 to 1 bedroom 1

2 to 3 bedrooms 2

4 or more bedrooms 2 ½

Sources: Goldfarb & Lipman, LLC., SB 1818 Q & A; Manteca Municipal

Code Chapter 17.72.030, 2015.

Chapter 17.72 of Manteca’s Municipal Code describes the City’s density bonus and incentives. The City

shall grant one density bonus, with concessions or incentives, when the applicant for the housing

development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development, excluding any units permitted by the

density bonus award. A housing development that satisfies the eligibility requirements shall be entitled to

the following density bonus:

A 20 percent increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density, plus a 1.5

percent supplemental increase over that base for every 1 percent increase in low-income units

above 10 percent for developments providing 10 percent low-income units;

A 20 percent increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density, plus a 2.5

percent supplemental increase over that base for every 1 percent increase in very low-income

target units above 5 percent for developments providing 5 percent very low-income units;

The project is eligible to receive a flat 20 percent density bonus of the number of senior units for

senior citizen housing developments; and

The project is eligible to receive a 5 percent density bonus if 10 percent of for-purchase units are

affordable to moderate-income households, plus a 1 percent increase in moderate-income units

above 10 percent.

The maximum density bonus allowed including supplemental increases is 35 percent.

-




Currently (2015) Chapter 17.72 is consistent with State law requirements related to density bonuses. It

states that the City shall grant a density bonus and at least one other incentive (e.g., reduction in

development standards, mixed-use zoning,). In addition to the previously mentioned density bonus,

Manteca’s code states that an applicant may request specific incentives or concessions in connection with

its application for a density bonus if they meet the following:

One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 10 percent of the total units for

lower-income households, at least 5 percent for very low-income households, or at least 10

percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development;

Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 20 percent of the total units for

lower-income households, at least 10 percent for very-low income households, or at least 20

percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development; or,

Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30 percent of the total units for

lower-income households, at least 15 percent for very low-income households, or at least 30

percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development;

When an applicant meets one of the above requirements, the following incentives and concessions are

available:

A reduction in the site development standards or a modification of Zoning Code requirements or

architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the

California Building Standards Commission, including but not limited to, a reduction in setback

and square footage requirements and in ratio of vehicle parking spaces that would otherwise be

required and that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reduction;

Approval of mixed-use development in conjunction with the housing development if the

nonresidential land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and the nonresidential

land uses are compatible with the housing development and surrounding existing development in

the area in which the housing development will be located;

Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the applicant or that the City determines

that will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions; and,

Priority processing of a housing development that provides income-restricted units.

While the City offers a density bonus to affordable housing developers consistent with State law, the City

has not received much interest from developers.

9. State of California, Article 34

Article 34 of the State Constitution requires voter approval for specified ―low rent‖ housing projects that

involve certain types of public agency participation. Generally, a project is subject to Article 34 if more

than 49 percent of its units will be rented to low-income persons. If a project is subject to Article 34, it

will require an approval from the local electorate. This can constrain the production of affordable

-



housing, since the process to seek ballot approval for affordable housing projects can be costly and time

consuming, with no guarantee of success.

The provisions of Article 34 allow local jurisdictions to seek voter approval for ―general authority‖ to

develop low‐income housing without identifying specific projects or sites. If the electorate approves

general parameters for certain types of affordable housing development, the local jurisdiction will be able

to move more quickly in response to housing opportunities that fall within those parameters.

Since the City of Manteca has not built housing itself, it has not needed Article 34 authorization. The lack

of Article 34 authorization has not served as a constraint to the development of affordable housing.

10. Inclusionary Housing

Many local governments are adopting inclusionary zoning provisions also referred to as inclusionary

housing, as a method of producing long-term affordable housing for lower-income residents. Inclusionary

housing policies can be voluntary or mandatory. Mandatory inclusionary programs require developers to

provide a certain percentage of the units in their residential developments as affordable (on-site or off-

site). Voluntary inclusionary housing programs offer incentives to encourage developers to provide

affordable units.

Inclusionary housing is a controversial issue, with strong critics and advocates. Inclusionary zoning

opponents, generally developers and economists, argue that it imposes additional costs on new

development that are often passed on to buyers through increased costs of market rate housing. Advocates

of inclusionary housing, primarily affordable housing advocates, argue that the negative impacts that an

inclusionary zoning ordinance might have on housing production can be mitigated through density

bonuses or other incentives. Advocates argue that it is an effective means of producing affordable units

that are geographically dispersed throughout residential neighborhoods and do not require direct public

subsidies.

The City of Manteca does not currently (2015) have any inclusionary housing requirements. The cities of

Ripon and Escalon are two cities in San Joaquin County that have inclusionary housing requirements. The

City of Ripon adopted its inclusionary housing program in 2001. Chapter 16.194 (Below Market Rate

Housing Program) of Ripon’s Municipal Code requires 9 percent of units to be affordable (3 percent very

low-, 3 percent low-, and 3 percent moderate-income units). Escalon adopted its inclusionary housing

program in 2005. Escalon’s Affordable Housing Chapter (Chapter 17.50 of the City’s Municipal Code)

requires that 10 to 15 percent of all new development be available for persons and households of low or

moderate income.

11. Development, Maintenance, and Improvement of Housing for Persons with Disabilities

Persons with disabilities have various housing needs related to accessibility. Housing Element law

requires that, in addition to the needs analysis for persons with disabilities, the housing element must

analyze potential governmental constraints to the development, maintenance, and improvement of

housing for persons with disabilities. In accordance with SB 520 (Chapter 671, Statutes of 2001), the City

-




has analyzed the potential and actual governmental constraints on the development of housing for persons

with disabilities.

The City ensures that new housing development complies with Title 24 requirements of the California

Building Code, including accessibility requirements for persons with disabilities.

The City provides contacts list its website with information on who to contact regarding a specific issue.

Persons requesting reasonable accommodation contact the Building Department. Special

accommodations can be made for the City’s housing programs by noting the need on the specific program

application.

Additionally, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.10 Reasonable Accommodations section outlines the

process for individuals with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodations, including relief

from the various land use, zoning, or rules, policies, practices, and/or procedures of the City. It is the

policy of the City, pursuant to the Federal Fair Housing Act, to provide persons with disabilities

reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing.

The Municipal Code defines ―Family‖ as follows:

One or more persons living together in a dwelling unit, with common access to and common use

of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within the dwelling unit.

The definition of ―Family‖ in the City’s Municipal Code is consistent with State and Federal fair housing

laws and does not discriminate against unrelated individuals.

B. Potential Non-Governmental Constraints

The availability and cost of housing is strongly influenced by market forces over which local

governments have little or no control. Nonetheless, State law requires that the Housing Element contain a

general assessment of these constraints, which can serve as the basis for actions to offset their effects. The

primary non-governmental constraints to the development of new housing in Manteca can be broken into

the following categories: availability of financing, development costs, environmental constraints, and

community sentiment.

All resources needed to develop housing in Manteca are subject to the laws of supply and demand,

meaning that these resources may not always be available at prices which make housing development

attractive. Cost factors are the primary non-governmental constraints upon development of housing in

Manteca. This is particularly true in the case of housing for low- and moderate-income households, where

basic development cost factors such as the cost of land, required site improvements, and basic

construction are critical in determining the income a household must have in order to afford housing.

1. Availability of Financing

Financing has historically been available for credit-worthy projects, with interest rates determined largely

by the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve Board. Beginning in the 1990s, rising housing values and a

growing housing industry boosted investor and homebuyer portfolios and contributed to a sense of

-



security that encouraged continued investment in the housing market. Alternative mortgage products

increased the number of homebuyers, especially investors who purchased single-family homes as non-

primary residences. Virtually every business or profession related to homes sales, construction,

mortgages, and titles had increased business opportunities during this period.

The use of alternative or ―creative‖ mortgage products, such as graduated payment mortgages, variable

and adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only loans, ―stated income‖ loans with no income verification, and

zero down payment loans allowed consumers to purchase high-priced housing without the qualifications

required by traditional loans, such as sufficient income level. The mortgage products increased

homeownership rates, a goal of affordable housing advocates; however, they provided homeowners with

unstable mortgages. Even during periods of higher interest rates, homeownership and home sales

increased. Government programs for increasing homeownership rely on fixed interest rate mortgages

below market rate, for principle or down-payment assistance loans.

Starting in 2006, home prices in the city of Manteca, and throughout California, began to level off and

then decline for both new and existing homes. The subprime mortgage crisis precipitated when borrowers

who purchased homes found that they owed more on their homes than their homes were worth. The

mortgage market collapse also impacted borrowers with ―jumbo‖ loans, relatively large loans that are not

Federally-backed. A jumbo mortgage is a loan amount above conventional conforming loan limits set by

Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC), Federally-chartered financial institutions that purchase

the bulk of residential mortgages in the US. Resets of interest rates and mortgage payments in the

subprime mortgage market resulted in huge waves of foreclosures.

During the Recession of the late 2000s Manteca and the other jurisdictions in San Joaquin County were

some of the hardest hit areas in terms of foreclosures. Specifically between January 2007 and August

2008 there were more than 12,000 housing foreclosures in San Joaquin County, with Manteca being one

of the hardest hit communities. Housing prices fell so dramatically that the housing market collapsed back

to 2003 levels. However, tightening of loan underwriting practices did not permit low-income

homebuyers to take advantage of lower house prices. As a direct result of the credit collapse, stricter

mortgage industry standards now require larger down-payments when purchasing a home.

Although the market is slowly picking up, it is still not possible to forecast what will happen to interest

rates during this Housing Element planning period. If interest rates rise, not only will it make new

construction more costly (since construction period loans are short term and bear a higher interest rate that

amortized mortgages), but it will also lower the sales price that buyers can afford to pay.

In February 2012 the California Attorney General obtained a broad-ranging mortgage settlement that

resulted in more than $20 billion from five major banks: Ally Financial, Bank of America, Citibank,

JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. The settlement created new servicing standards, provided cash

payments to many homeowners who were wrongly foreclosed upon; provided loan modification relief

and short sale opportunities; and appointed a monitor to oversee the banks to make sure they complied

with the settlement terms.

The U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) provides data at the city and county level

regarding overpayment. According to the 2011-2013 ACS 43.5 percent of owner households in the

-




county and 46.6 percent of owner households in Manteca overpay for housing. The high percentage of

homeowners spending a disproportionate percentage of income on housing, combined with a large

number of troubled subprime loans, suggests that homebuyers in San Joaquin County will continue to

face challenges in affordable housing, and the assumption that homeownership is a more affordable

option will continue to be challenged.

2. Development Costs

Land Costs

Costs associated with the acquisition of land include both the market price of raw land and the cost of

holding the property throughout the development process. Land acquisition costs can account for over

half of the final sales price of new homes in small developments and in areas where land is scarce.

The main determinant of land value is market demand and builders will pay a premium for residential

land in a strong market when expected buyers are plentiful. Before the Recession raw residential land in

the area was selling for well over $100,000 per acre with no site improvements. After the Recession, the

value of land significantly declined as home building slowed and some national builders left the area.

According to Zillow, an online real estate database, two lots recently sold within the city of Manteca. The

first lot, sold in August 2014, sold for $71,875 per acre, while the second lot, sold in April 2013, sold for

$60,811 per acre. The average between these two recently sold lots is $66,343 per acre.

Site Improvement Costs

Upon securing the raw land, a residential developer would have to make certain site improvements to

―finish‖ the lot before a home could actually be built on the property. Such improvements include

connections to existing utility systems, rough grading, construction of streets, installation of water and

sewer lines, and construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. According to local developers, Site

improvement costs for an entry-level single-family tract home in Manteca (not infill) were estimated at

approximately $46,000 per lot.

Construction Costs

Housing construction costs can act as a constraint to the affordability of new housing. However, the cost

of construction varies with the type, size, location, and amenities of the development. ―Entry-level‖

homes have far fewer amenities than other higher-priced custom homes. On average, a medium- to low-

end 1,200 square foot production home with a 400 square foot attached garage (total 1,600 square feet)

with no upgrades will cost roughly $80 per square foot to build, which equates to about $128,000 in

construction costs. It is important to note that $80 per square foot represents only costs of construction

and not entitlement costs, site improvement costs, impact fees, insurance, permits & utilities, plans &

specs, and contractor mark-up fees. The increased use of prefabricated factory-built or manufactured

housing, which is permitted in all residential districts throughout the city (consistent with California State

law), may provide for lower-priced housing by reducing construction and labor costs.

Even with the housing market improving, builders are cautious to begin new construction projects

because the market is over-built and still uncertain, and mortgage financing is difficult to obtain. The

-



foreclosure crisis following the housing boom is the main factor causing an over-supply of housing and

limits on financing. Perspective homebuyers can purchase a nearly new foreclosed home for less than it

would cost a developer to build a new home. However more recently developers are slowly showing

interest in building new homes in Manteca, although in a more cautious manner and pace.

Overall there is little that the City can do to mitigate the impacts of high construction costs except by

avoiding local amendments to uniform building codes that unnecessarily increase construction costs

without significantly adding to health, safety, or construction quality. Because construction costs are

similar in the city to those in other Central Valley areas, the cost of construction is not considered a major

constraint to housing production.

Total Housing Development Costs

High construction costs coupled with high land costs make it difficult for private sector developers to

provide housing for lower-income residents. Subsidies, incentives, and other types of financial assistance

are available to private sector developers to bridge the gap between actual costs of development and the

sale price of affordable housing.

Land prices and profit are the two basic variables local development companies can alter when analyzing

a potential development. Builders run models with all of their potential ―hard costs‖ (i.e., land

development costs, lot improvement costs, construction costs, regulatory costs, and administrative costs)

in order to calculate how much the company can pay for the land given required rates of return for

investors, and desired levels of profit for the development company. The ―residual land value‖ plays a key

role in defining whether home building will be profitable given potential buyer’s incomes and hard costs

of development.

As shown in Table 54, the total of all housing development costs discussed above for a typical entry-level

single-family home (1,200 square feet, plus a 400 square foot attached garage) is about $236,727,

including site improvements, construction costs, fees and permits. This figure does not include land costs,

developer profit, marketing or financing costs.

Table 54 Estimated Single-Family Housing Development Costs

Manteca 2008

Type of Cost Amount

Land Costs1 $14,743

Site Improvement Costs $46,000

Construction Cost $128,000

Typical Development Impact Fees2

$35,727

Total Housing Development Costs $209,727 + land costs

Source: Building-cost.net; Mintier Harnish; Developer source from the City of Manteca,

2015. 1 Average of recently sold lots in Manteca: $66,343 per acre divided by 4.5 du/ac 2 Includes typical development agreement fees.

-




The specifications for the hypothetical house used for this analysis were chosen to define it as an entry-

level family home. As noted earlier in Table 23, recent (2014) sales prices for new single-family detached

homes in Manteca averaged around $315,000. The average home price in 2014 is an increase from the

2013 average home price of $274,000. Total housing development costs (which do not include land costs)

are a major constraint to housing production given that resale properties are being priced below the

replacement cost of a new home.

-



V. EVALUATION

A. Review of Existing (2010) Housing Element

The following section reviews and evaluates the City’s progress in implementing the 2010 Housing

Element. It reviews the results and effectiveness of policies and programs for the previous Housing

Element planning period.

-




Housing Program Responsible

Agency Time

Frame Accomplishments

Continue/ Discontinue

Goal H-1: To promote the development of affordable housing in the city of Manteca.

Program H-I-1: Density Bonus

The City shall update Chapter 17.43 of the

Municipal Code (Density Bonuses) to

include density bonus provisions that are

consistent with State law, including

statewide parking standards for affordable

housing.

Community

Development

Department, City

Council

FY 2009/2010

The City adopted its updated Zoning

Ordinance in 2011. Chapter 17.72

(Density Bonus and Other Incentives) is

compliant with State law.

Discontinue

-




Agency Time



Program H-I-2: Fee Waivers for Affordable Housing

In special circumstances the City may waive

City development fees or provide other

incentives for housing projects affordable to

extremely low-, very low-, low- and

moderate-income households. Where the

City provides a funding program, waives

fees, or provides other financial incentives,

the City and developer shall enter into a

development agreement defining the

incentive and the obligation of the developer

to provide housing affordable to low-, very

low-, or extremely low-income households.

The agreement shall provide for maintaining

the affordability of the benefiting dwellings

over time. The criteria for granting a fee

waiver shall include, but is not limited to,

availability of other funding contributions

from charitable or non-profit organizations,

the household size, special needs

considerations (e.g., large households,

elderly persons with disabilities), and the

level of income for the prospective tenants or

owners of the unit. Priority will be given to

housing development that is co-sponsored

with, or otherwise receives matching funding

from another agency (State or Federal) or

non-profit organization. The decision to

waive or modify fees will be made on a case-

by-case basis.

City Council,

Redevelopment

Agency

Ongoing as

opportunities

are available

The City will continue to provide

incentives such as fee waivers to

affordable housing projects.

Continue, but

remove references

to the

Redevelopment

Agency

-





Agency Time



Program H-I-3: Growth Management Ordinance Point Rating System

The City shall modify the point rating

system of the sewer allocation system (i.e.,

Growth Management Program) to award

points to affordable rental projects for not

only very low-income households, but also

low- and extremely low-income households.

Community

Development

Department, City

Council

FY 2009/2010

The City aimed to modify its point rating

system prior to GMO application

submittals in March 2012; however, due

to surplus sewer allocations and low

demand there wasn't a need to amend the

ordinance.

Continue.

Program H-I-4: Growth Management Program

The City shall retain the Growth

Management Ordinance annual residential

growth cap of 3.9 percent of existing

housing stock, but modify the GMO to allow

infill development at the density of the

underlying zoning, and to provide exclusions

for infill development (a concept approved

by the City Council in 2000) and affordable

housing from the 3.9 percent cap. In order to

be consistent with Government Code Section

65589.7(c), the City shall also adopt

procedures in its Growth Management

Ordinance to exempt affordable (i.e., lower-

income) units from the sewer allocation

process and associated fees. The point rating

system shall be modified to represent current

development goals. Additionally, the City

shall annually monitor the progress of the

growth management ordinance and, if

necessary, modify the implementation of the

rating system.

City Council FY 2009/2010

The City aimed to modify its GMO to

allow infill development at maximum

zoning density and exempt affordable

housing from point rating system and fees

before GMO application submittals in

March 2012; however, due to surplus

sewer allocations and low demand there

wasn't a need to amend the ordinance.

Modify and

combine with

Program H-I-3,

above.

-




Agency Time



Program H-I-5: Pursue State and Federal Funding

The City shall pursue appropriate State and

Federal funding sources to support the

efforts of non-profit and for-profit

developers to meet new construction and

rehabilitation needs of lower- and moderate-

income households. The City shall also

specifically target funding to address the

needs of extremely low-income households.

The City shall periodically update and

review available housing programs to

identify appropriate funding sources to meet

Manteca’s housing needs. The RDA staff

shall annually prepare a summary of funding

programs available to the RDA and provide

the RDA Board of Directors with a

recommendation for application for funding

opportunities. The RDA Board shall direct

the staff to apply for such grants, loans and

other funding opportunities that may be

applicable in the City.

Redevelopment

Agency, Community

Development

Department

Annually

Redevelopment Agencies were officially

dissolved on February 1, 2012. The City

continues to pursue HOME and CDBG

funding.

Continue, but

remove references

to the

Redevelopment

Agency

Program H-I-6: First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program

The City shall continue to support and fund

its First- Time Homebuyer Assistance

Program to help make housing affordable for

low- and moderate-income residents.

Redevelopment

Agency Ongoing

Before dissolution in February 2012, the

Redevelopment Agency funded three

first-time homebuyers assistance loans for

moderate-income residents. The City

forwarded twelve low-income household

applications the Neighborhood

Preservation Division in San Joaquin

County, who administer the low-income

program. The low-income program is

funded with HOME funds.

Discontinue

-





Agency Time



Program H-I-7: Land Assembly

The City shall continue to use its powers and

revenues to assemble land that can be used

as an incentive to facilitate development of

lower-income housing projects at reduced

costs. As the opportunity becomes available,

the City shall consider assembly of land that

is in foreclosure as a potential site for

affordable housing. When assembling land,

the City shall give preference to sites located

close to amenities such as transit, schools,

parks, grocery stores, and other services.

Redevelopment

Agency

Ongoing, as

the

opportunity

arises


dissolved on February 1, 2012. No land

was available for purchase before that

time.

Continue, but

replace

Redevelopment

Agency with City

Council and

Community

Development

Department.

Goal H-2: To promote mixed-use, infill, and downtown development in the city of Manteca.

Program H-I-8: Zoning Ordinance Amendments

The City shall make the following

amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and

Zoning Map to encourage infill and higher-

density development in the downtown:

• Add a Commercial Mixed Use Zone

(CMU) that permits multi-family residential

uses ―by right‖ as a part of a mixed-use

development.

• Infill parcels will be allowed to develop

entirely with multi-family residential uses.

City Council, City

Manager, Community

Development

Department,

Redevelopment

Agency

The City will

begin

updating the

Zoning

Ordinance in

2009 and

expects to

complete the

update in 2010


Ordinance in 2011 and included a new

mixed-use zone. The City allows stand

alone multifamily in this mixed-use zone.

Discontinue

-




Agency Time



Program H-I-9: Infill Site Assembly

The City shall keep the Housing Element

inventory of small infill parcels that would

be well-suited for residential and mixed-use

development up to date and assist developers

in the consolidation and assembly of the

identified parcels. The City shall provide

additional incentives for residential and

mixed-use development of these infill

parcels, possibly including fee waivers for

lot consolidation of infill parcels, modified

development standards (e.g., setbacks,

height, FAR), and reduced parking

requirements.

Redevelopment

Agency

Update the

inventory

annually and

provide

ongoing

developer

assistance


dissolved on February 1, 2012.

Continue, but

replace

Redevelopment

Agency with City

Council and

Community

Development

Department.

Program H-I-10: Second Units

The City shall promote the development of

second unit dwellings by posting information

on the City’s website regarding permitting

requirements, changes in State law,

prototype plan sets, internet resources, ―how

to‖ manuals, and/or benefits of second unit

dwellings to property owners and the

community.

Community

Development

Department

FY 2010/2011

The City updated Chapter 17.82 of the

Municipal Code (Second Dwelling Units)

to reflect state law regulations in 2011.

Due to limited staff resources the City has

not been able to provide online

information.

Continue

-





Agency Time



Goal H-3: To provide a range of housing types, densities, and designs, and meet existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community.

Program H-I-11: Zoning Ordinance Amendments

The City shall make the following

amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and

Zoning Map to ensure compliance with State

law and establish consistency between the

General Plan and Zoning Ordinance:

• Rezone all parcels that have zoning

classifications that are inconsistent with their

General Plan land use designations. • Modify

the minimum lot area per unit in the R- 3 and

R-4 zones to allow development to achieve

the maximum allowed densities of the

underlying General Plan land use

designations.

• Increase the maximum allowed height in all

residential zones and eliminate height

restrictions in all commercial districts to

allow for greater density and more efficient

use of land.

• Modify setbacks and building site

coverages to ensure that development can

achieve the maximum densities identified in

the General Plan.

City Council, City

Manager, Community

Development

Department,

Redevelopment

Agency

The City will

begin

updating the

Zoning

Ordinance in

2009 and

expects to

complete the

update in 2010


Ordinance in 2011. Discontinue

Program H-I-12: Vacant and Underutilized Residential Parcel Inventory

The City shall continue to maintain and

make available to the public an inventory of

vacant and underutilized residentially-zoned

parcels. The City shall make the system

user-friendly and aim to update the list on a

monthly basis. The system shall be used to

facilitate the assembly of infill parcels (see

Implementation Programs H-I-9 and H-I-20).

Community

Development

Department

FY 2009/2010

The City continues to maintain its

underutilized residentially-zoned vacant

land inventory.

Continue

-




Agency Time



Program H-I-13: Approved Project Inventory

The City shall continue to maintain and

make available to the public a list of

approved residential projects (i.e.,

Residential Activity Report) and a list of the

housing built by type and affordability

categories. The City shall make the system

user-friendly and aim to update the lists on a

monthly basis.

Community

Development

Department

FY 2009/2010 The City continues to maintain its

residential vacant lot inventory. Continue

Program H-I-14: Annexation

While the City currently (2009) has an

adequate supply of residentially-zoned land,

the City shall periodically review the supply

of land zoned for residential use and shall

initiate an annexation program when the

available supply of land is less than 120

percent of the projected five-year housing

need.

City Council,

Community

Development

Department

FY 2010/2011

The supply of residentially zoned land

was sufficient for the January 2010 to

December 2010 reporting period. The

City will continue to review and update its

residentially-zoned land supply.

Continue

Program H-I-15: Permit Process and Development Fee Schedule

The City shall evaluate the effect of the

existing and proposed rates on the cost of

new housing when revising the City’s permit

processing and development fee structure.

Public Works

Department,

Community

Development

Department, and

Finance Department

FY 2010/2011

The City evaluated and updated its permit

and development fee structure in July

2010, which resulted in significant

reductions in cost of new housing. The

City will continue to evaluate its fee

structure.

Continue

-





Agency Time



Program H-I-16: Parking Requirements

The City shall evaluate parking needs to

determine whether or not current parking

standards contained in the Municipal Code

are appropriate for different housing types

(e.g., multi-family housing, senior housing,

and affordable housing). If necessary, the

City shall amend current parking standards

to ensure that they are appropriate and do not

unreasonably hinder the ability of a

residential developer to achieve the

maximum allowable density for a site.

Community

Development

Department, City

Council

FY 2010/2011


Ordinance in 2011. As part of the update,

the City evaluated appropriate parking

requirements for residential development.

Discontinue

Goal H-4: To encourage the maintenance and continued improvement of the existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods.

Program H-I-17: Housing Rehabilitation Matching Grant Program

The Redevelopment Agency shall continue

to administer the Housing Rehabilitation

Matching Grant Program.

Redevelopment

Agency Ongoing


dissolved on February 1, 2012. Discontinue

Program H-I-18: CDBG Funds for Affordable Housing Preservation

The City shall continue to participate in the

San Joaquin County Community

Development Block Grant (CDBG) program

and annually seek CDBG funding for City

projects and programs that support the

preservation and maintenance of affordable

housing. In the alternative the City may

apply for direct allocation funds under the

State CDBG program. Housing objectives

shall be a high priority in the use of CDBG

funds.

City Council,

Redevelopment

Agency

Annually The City continues to partner with the

County for CDBG funding.

Continue, but

modify to remove

reference to the

Redevelopment

Agency

-




Agency Time



Goal H-5: To prevent foreclosures, protect affected families, and stabilize neighborhoods impacted by foreclosures.

Program H-I-19: Homebuyer Education Program

The City shall partner with local developers

and banks to establish a Homebuyer

Education Program. The program shall

include workshops and/or the distribution of

information regarding readiness to purchase

a home, money management, understanding

credit, obtaining a loan, shopping for a

home, home maintenance, financial

management, and foreclosure prevention.

While the program will be open to the

general public, the City shall mandate that

anyone purchasing a home with city- based

financial assistance attend the Homebuyer

Education Program. The City shall promote

the program on the City website, through

brochures available at the City offices,

and/or in local newspaper advertisements, as

well as through partnerships with local

realtors.

Redevelopment

Agency Ongoing


dissolved on February 1, 2012. Discontinue

Program H-I-20: Promoting Foreclosure Prevention Resources

The City shall promote foreclosure

prevention resources by posting information

on the City website about foreclosure

prevention hotlines and services offered by

HUD-approved housing counseling agencies

(e.g., Visionary Home Builders of

California, California Rural Legal

Assistance, ByDesign Financial Solutions).

Community

Development

Department

FY 2009/2010

The City has not made any progress in

implementation of this program. Number

of foreclosures have gone down

drastically, therefore, this program is no

longer needed.

Discontinue

-





Agency Time



Program H-I-21: Nuisance Abatement in Impacted Neighborhoods

To help secure and maintain vacant,

foreclosed properties, the City shall expand

code enforcement in the areas most impacted

by foreclosures. The City shall strive to

effectively follow up on code violations to

ensure that problems are addressed. The City

shall create a nuisance abatement fund for

the maintenance of abandoned properties and

consider recouping costs by charging

property owners and/or placing liens on the

properties.

Building Department,

Finance Department,

Redevelopment

Agency

Ongoing

The Redevelopment Agency hired a Code

Enforcement Officer to monitor the

affected areas in the city. Redevelopment

Agencies were officially dissolved in

2012.

Continue, but

modify to remove

references to

Redevelopment

Agency and to

foreclosures.

Program H-I-22: Foreclosure Acquisition

The City shall continue to work with

qualified non- profit partners to acquire

foreclosed properties, rehabilitate properties,

if necessary, and redevelop properties as

affordable housing for renters or first-time

homebuyers. The City may use other

housing programs, such as the first-time

homebuyer downpayment assistance

program, in conjunction. In some cases, the

City may demolish foreclosed homes and re-

use the land for mixed-use or non-residential

purposes when the demolition will create an

opportunity to create more amenities and

carry out a comprehensive rebuilding or

revitalization strategy.

Redevelopment

Agency, Community

Development

Department

Ongoing

Before dissolution in 2012, the

Redevelopment Agency partnered with a

nonprofit developer to acquire foreclosed

properties. Five homes in the city of

Manteca were purchased with

Neighborhood Stabilization Funds and

were sold to moderate- and low-income

families.

Discontinue

-




Agency Time



Goal H-6: To provide adequate housing opportunities for persons with special needs, including seniors, persons with disabilities, single parents, large families, persons lacking permanent shelter, and residents with extremely low incomes.

Program H-I-23: Senior Housing Rehabilitation Program

The Redevelopment Agency shall continue

to support and fund the Senior Housing

Rehabilitation Program, designed to assist

eligible seniors who have minor home repair

needs.

Redevelopment

Agency Ongoing

The Redevelopment Agency provided

funding for 24 Senior Housing

Rehabilitation loans/grants during FY

2010/2011. The Redevelopment Agencies

were officially dissolved in 2012.

Discontinue

Program H-I-24: Emergency Shelter Zoning

The City shall update the Zoning Ordinance

to define emergency shelters and ensure that

emergency shelters are allowed ―by right‖ in

the General Commercial (CG) zone. As a

part of these Zoning Code revisions, the City

shall ensure that there are sufficient

opportunities to accommodate the identified

need for emergency shelter facilities during

the Housing Element planning period. In

addition, the City shall adopt permit

processing, development, and management

standards for emergency shelters that are

consistent with State law and that encourage

and facilitate the development of emergency

shelters.

Community

Development

Department, City

Council

Within one

year of

adoption of

Housing

Element

The City updated its Zoning Code to

comply with State law in 2015. Discontinue

-





Agency Time



Program H-I-25: Transitional and Supportive Housing

The City shall ensure that transitional and

supportive housing are accommodated in

Manteca with minimal regulatory barriers.

The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance

to ensure that transitional and supportive

housing are residential uses subject only to

those restrictions that apply to other

residential uses of the same type in the same

zone.

City Council,

Community

Development

Department

The City will

begin

updating the

Zoning

Ordinance in

2009 and

expects to

complete the

update in 2010

The City updated its Zoning Code to

comply with State law in 2015. Discontinue

Program H-I-26: Single Room Occupancy Units

The City shall update the Zoning Ordinance

to explicitly define single room occupancy

(SRO) units as a residential use that is

allowed ―by right‖ in the R-4 zoning districts

and all Commercial zones.

Community

Development

Department, City

Council

Within one

year of

adoption of

Housing

Element


Ordinance in 2011. SRO units are only

allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in

R-3 zoning districts.

Discontinue

Program H-I-27: Support for Homeless Shelters and Transitional Housing

The City shall pursue State and Federal

funds to support existing emergency

shelters and transitional housing with

maintenance and operation costs.

Community

Development

Department,

Redevelopment

Agency

FY

2009/2010,

Ongoing

The Redevelopment Agency funded the

rehabilitation of HOPE Family Shelter.


dissolved on February 1, 2012.

Continue, but

remove references

to the

Redevelopment

Agency.

-




Agency Time



Program H-I-28: Reasonable Accommodation

The City shall amend its Zoning Ordinance

to provide individuals, family members,

caregivers, and/or anyone acting on behalf of

a person with disabilities reasonable

accommodation in rules, policies, practices,

and procedures that may be necessary to

ensure equal access to housing.

Community

Development

Department, City

Council

FY 2009/2010


Ordinance in 2011, which includes a new

chapter on reasonable accommodation.

Discontinue

Program H-I-29: Publicizing Reasonable Accommodation

The City shall create a public information

brochure on reasonable accommodation for

persons with disabilities and provide that

information on the City’s website.

Community

Development

Department

FY 2009/2010


Ordinance in 2011. Due to limited staff

resources the City has not been able to

provide online information.

Continue

Program H-I-30: Zoning for Group Homes

The City shall modify the Zoning Ordinance

to allow any community care facility or

group home of six or fewer residents,

including seniors, ―by right‖ in any

residential zone.

Community

Development

Department

FY 2009/2010 The City adopted its updated Zoning

Ordinance in 2011. Discontinue

Goal H-7: To promote equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone in the community regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability.

Program H-I-31: Fair Housing Information

The City shall post and distribute

information on the enforcement program of

the State Fair Employment and Housing

Commission and the services of the San

Joaquin Fair Housing Association.

Redevelopment

Agency Ongoing


dissolved on February 1, 2012. Due to

limited staff resources, information was

not distrubuted.

Continue, but

change

Redevelopment

Agency to

Community

Development

Department.

-





Agency Time



Program H-I-32: San Joaquin Fair Housing Program

The City shall coordinate with the San

Joaquin Fair Housing Association for

administration of a fair housing program.

The City shall annually review the activities

of the San Joaquin Fair Housing Association

to ensure that it is meeting the City’s fair

housing objectives and to evaluate its cost

effectiveness. The City may establish and

administer its own fair housing program. The

City shall provide information provided by

the San Joaquin Fair Housing Association

(including brochures, flyers, posters, and

similar publications) in public locations

throughout the city, including the

Community Development Department

Office, Administration Office, libraries, and

the senior center. In addition, the

Community Development Department shall

have such information available on the City

website and distribute it to churches,

developers, non- profit agencies, and others

who request it. Information shall be provided

in languages other than English where

appropriate.

City Council, City

Manager Annually

The City continues to coordinate with the

County in evaluating and developing its

fair housing programs.

Continue

-




Agency Time



Goal H-8: To encourage energy efficient residential and neighborhood designs that reduce total housing costs by lowering ongoing operation and maintenance costs.

Program H-I-33: Energy Efficiency Opportunities

The City shall continue to post and distribute

information on currently available

weatherization programs. The City shall also

produce and distribute information regarding

Title 24, green building, durable materials

and designs, innovative building

construction techniques and materials, land

use and circulation patterns, water

conservation, and renewable energy

opportunities.

Building Department FY 2009/2010

The City distributes information on

weatherization programs and energy

conservation. The City will continue its

efforts to provide information to the

public.

Continue

Goal H-9: To ensure that Housing Element programs are implemented on a timely basis and the progress of each program is monitored and evaluated annually.

Program H-I-34: Housing Element Implementation Reporting

The City shall review and report on the

implementation of Housing Element

programs to the Department of Housing and

Community Development (HCD) using a

format provided by HCD.

Community

Development

Department,

Redevelopment

Agency

FY

2009/2010,

Ongoing

The City prepared an Annual Progress

Report for 2010 and continues its efforts

to submit annual reports to HCD.

Continue

Program H-I-35: Residential Permit and Project Tracking System

The City shall improve its permit and project

tracking system by using updated record-

keeping methods.

Community

Development

Department, Building

Department

FY 2009/2010

The City purchased and updated its

enterprise software system in FY

2011/2012.

Discontinue

-


of Mantecausing Elemumen


BIBLIOGRAPHY American Community Survey, 2008-2010, 2011-2013. factfinder.census.gov

Building-cost.net, 2015.

California Association of Realtors. http://www.car.org/.

California Department of Finance. http://www.dof.ca.gov.

California Department of Housing and Community Development. http://www.hcd.ca.gov.

California Employment Development Department. http://edd.ca.gov.

Central Valley Low-Income Housing Corporation, 2015.

City of Manteca, Community Development Department, 2015.

City of Manteca General Plan, 2003.

City of Manteca Municipal Code, 2015.

City of Manteca, Municipal Service Review, 2015.

CoreLogic (formerly DataQuick), Home Sales Report, 2015.

Craigslist.com, 2015.

Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin, 2015.

HUD Fair Market Rents, San Joaquin County, 2014.

HUD SOCDS, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) database, 2007-2011.

San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). www.sjcog.org.

San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), 2014-2023 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)

Final RHNA Report, 2014.

San Joaquin County, Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report, 2013-2014.

San Joaquin County, Countywide Population/Households/Employment Update, 2009.

San Joaquin County Human Services Agency. http://www.sjgov.org/HSA.

Trulia.com, 2015.

United States Census Bureau, 2000, 2010. http://www.census.gov.

-




United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2015.

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. http://www.hud.gov

United States Social Security Administration. http://www.ssa.gov.

Zillow.com, 2015.

Persons Consulted

Brad Wungluck, Chief Building Official, Building Safety Division, City of Manteca, California.

Mark Meissner, Planning Manager, Community Development Department, City of Manteca, California.

-




APPENDICES

Appendix A: Residential Sites Inventory

Appendix B: Community/Stakeholder Workshop Summaries

Appendix C: Glossary

-



Appendix A: Residential Land Inventory

Table A-1 Vacant Residential Sites Inventory

Manteca 2015

APN #

GP LU Designation

GP LU Desig. Code

Zoning

GPLU Min.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre)

GPLU Max.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre)

GIS

Acres

Max. # of Affordable Units (Res LU = 100% capacity, CMU LU = 35% capacity)

Inventoried Affordable Units (Res LU = 80% capacity, CMU

LU = 25% capacity)

Notes

Very Low-

Income

Low- Income

Mod- Income

Very Low-

Income

Low- Income

Mod- Income

High-Density Residential

200-140-02 High Density Residential HDR R3 15.1 25 3.43 86 69



224-050-15 (portion) High Density Residential HDR MP 15.1 25 25.40 635 508 Austin Road Master Plan

226-140-05 High Density Residential HDR MP 15.1 25 18.48 462 370 Austin Road Master Plan

228-020-40 (portion) High Density Residential HDR MP 15.1 25 17.42 436 348 Yosemite Square Master Plan




Subtotal 76.24 1,906 1,525

Medium-Density Residential

200-130-02 Medium Density Residential MDR R2 8.1 15 1.32 20 16

224-050-15 (portion) Medium Density Residential MDR MP 8.1 15 39.03 585 468 Austin Road Master Plan

226-140-05 Medium Density Residential MDR MP 8.1 15 18.13 272 218 Austin Road Master Plan

200-140-29 Medium Density Residential MDR PUD 8.1 15 14.78 222 177

200-140-30 Medium Density Residential MDR PUD 8.1 15 1.08 16 13



223-120-17 High Density Residential HDR R3 15.1 25 0.52 13 10 Inventoried as moderate-income based on parcel size

223-141-26 High Density Residential HDR R3 15.1 25 0.85 21 17 Adjacent to underutilized parcel APN 223-14-014; inventoried as

moderate-income based on parcel size

Subtotal 77.58 1,177 942

Commercial Mixed-Use

200-140-36 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 1.37 34 17

Yosemite Ave (inventoried 50% capacity); vacant site; could be

merged with APN 20014020; near Kaiser Medical center



216-340-14 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 1.06 27 13 Main St (inventoried 50% capacity)


Main St (inventoried 0% capacity); likely to develop as

commercial; vacant parcel could be merged with APN 21634059;

Main Street

-





Manteca 2015

APN #

GP LU Designation

GP LU Desig. Code

Zoning

GPLU Min.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre)

GPLU Max.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre)

GIS

Acres



LU = 25% capacity)

Notes

Very Low-

Income

Low- Income

Mod- Income

Very Low-

Income

Low- Income

Mod- Income


Main St (inventoried 50% capacity); vacant parcel could be

merged with APN 218-10-001 and -002; near SR99 on ramp;

mobile home park across highway, SF neighborhood to south



merged with APN 218-09-006 and 218-10-002; near SR99 on

ramp; mobile home park across highway, SF neighborhood to

east



merged with APN 218-09-006 and 218-10-001; near SR99 on

ramp; mobile home park across highway, borders SF

neighborhood to east


222-020-20, 222-020-

21 (2 parcels) Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 4.39 110 55

Yosemite Ave (inventoried 50% capacity); two vacant parcels;

could be merged with APN 222-02-019 (underutilized)


Yosemite Ave (inventoried 50% capacity); vacant parcel;

intersection of Yosemite Ave and Fishback Rd

222-050-03 (portion of

site) Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 10.31 258 129

Yosemite Ave (inventoried 50% capacity); vacant parcel, part of

larger (17-acre) parcel; other part designated LDR; Yosemite Ave

near Dominics Dr.


vacant parcel could be merged with APN 22402115; Quintall Rd.

and Atherton Dr.


vacant parcel could be merged with APN 22402114; Quintall Rd.

and Atherton Dr.

224-040-04 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 1.68 15 10.5 11

could be merged with other parcels: APN 224-04-001, -004, -006,

-007, -008, -009, -010, -011, -013, -052, -053; near Hwy 120 on

ramp



-007, -008, -009, -010, -011, -014, -052, -053; near Hwy 120 on

ramp



-007, -008, -009, -010, -011, -015, -052, -053; near Hwy 120 on

ramp


Main St (inventoried 50% capacity); could be merged with other

parcels: APN 224-04-001, -004, -006, -007, -008, -009, -010, -

011, -016, -052, -053; near Hwy 120 on ramp

-




Manteca 2015

APN # GP LU Designation

GP LU Desig. Code Zoning

GPLU Min.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre)

GPLU Max.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre) GIS

Acres



LU = 25% capacity)

Notes

Very Low-

Income Low-

Income Mod-

Income

Very Low-

Income Low-

Income Mod-

Income


Main St (inventoried 50% capacity); could be merged with other

parcels: APN 224-04-001, -004, -006, -007, -008, -009, -010, -

011, -017, -052, -053; near Hwy 120 on ramp



-007, -008, -009, -010, -011, -018, -052, -053; near Hwy 120 on

ramp



-007, -008, -009, -010, -011, -019, -052, -053; near Hwy 120 on

ramp



-007, -008, -009, -010, -011, -013, -053; near Hwy 120 on ramp



-007, -008, -009, -010, -011, -013, -052; near Hwy 120 on ramp


Part of a larger 82 acre vacant parcel with GC, HD, and BP

GPLU designations

Subtotal 196.37 3,541 10.5 1,654

TOTAL RESIDENTIAL LU DESIGNATIONS/ZONING 153.82 1,906 1,177 1,525 942

TOTAL COMMERCIAL MIXED USE LU DESIGNATIONS/ZONING 196.37 3,541 10.5 0 1,654 0

GRAND TOTAL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL MIXED USE LU

DESIGNATIONS/ZONING 350.19 5,447 10.5 1,177 3,179 942

-

P-25

P-28

P-16

P-11P-10

P-20

P-17

P-02

P-21

P-26

P-07

P-18

P-23

P-05

P-22

P-14

P-33

P-15

P-03

P-06

P-01

P-32

P-09

P-04

P-31

P-24

P-12

P-30P-08P-13

P-19

P-29

P-27

M a n t e c aM a n t e c a

L a t h r o pL a t h r o p

§̈¦I5

Manteca Housing ElementFigure A-1: ResidentialSites Inventory

0 1 20.5MilesF

Project Name

Alma Place

Atherton Homes atWoodward Park

Blossom Grove

Clearwater Creek

Copper Cove

Crivello Estates

Dejong Estates

Diego Country Estates

Dutra Estates

Evans Estates

Hat Ranch

Juniper Apartments

Lundbom Estates

Milner Terrace

Monte Bello Estates

Oakwood Trails

Oleander Estates

Pillsbury Estates

Senior HousingComplex

Shadowbrook

Sundance Project

Terra Bella

Terra RanchApartments

Tesoro Park

Trails of Manteca

Union Ranch

Villa Capri Apartments

Villa Ticino West

Vista VerdeApartments

Winters ColonialEstates

WoodbridgeApartments

Woodward Estates

Zoning

CBD

R1

R2

R3

CMU

PD

SP

MP

Underutilized (short-term)

City Limits

Source: City of Manteca (2015)

P-01

P-02

P-03

P-04

P-05

P-06

P-07

P-08

P-10

P-09

P-11

P-12

P-13

P-14

P-15

P-16

P-17

P-18

P-19

P-20

P-21

P-22

P-23

P-24

P-25

P-26

P-27

P-28

P-29

P-30

P-31

P-32

W Lathrop Rd

N U

nion Rd

S U

nion Rd

W Louise Ave

W Alameda St

N M

ain St

W Yosemite Ave E Yosemite Ave

Moffat Blvd

Cottage Ave

Spreckels Ave

Northgate Dr

Crom St

Wawona St Wawona St

S M

ain St

E Woodward Ave E Woodward Ave

Locust Ave

E Louise Ave

Northgate Dr

W Center St

E North St

Austin R

d

W Atherton Dr

Atherton Dr

120

120

99

.......... I .. , \ ___ ,

'---"'.J

! i ! : i I 1 l. i J l_

lo 7

(JJ

J' I, .. • • I

- ,. -- D

- • ••. 11·

-B r:] D -D --D

<rf "--

) IP f .. \

-1.,,/




-




Table A-2 Underutilized Residential and Mixed use Sites with Short-term Development Potential

Manteca 2015

APN # GP LU Designation GP LU

Desig. Code

Zoning

GPLU Min.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre)

GPLU Max.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre)

acres


Inventoried Affordable Units (Res LU = 80% capacity, CMU LU = 25% capacity)

Notes Very Low-

Income

Low- Income

Mod- Income

Very Low-

Income

Low- Income

Mod- Income

High-Density Residential


Site is mostly vacant; large parking lot cover 1/2 of site;

inventoried at 50% because of existing use

200-140-04 High Density Residential HDR R3 15.1 25 1.23 31 25 Underutilized homestead on western edge of paracel, otherwise

vacant

200-140-05 High Density Residential HDR R3 15.1 25 4.20 105 84 Underutilized homestead on western edge of paracel, otherwise

vacant


Mostly vacant; existing house on parcel, remaining land is vacant;

inventoried at 50%



inventoried at 50%



inventoried at 50%

Subtotal 9.21 230 157

Medium-Density GPLU


Underutilized homestead on western edge of parcel, otherwise

vacant



vacant



vacant

217-030-01 Medium Density Residential MDR R2 8.1 15 1.46 22 18 Existing single-family homes on large lot

217-240-06 Medium Density Residential MDR R2 8.1 15 0.6 9 7 Existing single-family homes on large lot

219-360-19 Medium Density Residential MDR R2 8.1 15 0.43 6 5 Existing small structure on large lot


Underutilized-Boarded-up SF home on part of site; other

dilapidated structures; structural assessed value is $68,136; across

the street from new MF development

224-050-35 Medium Density Residential MDR R2 8.1 15 13.86 208 166 Existing buildings on site.


Subtotal 45.59 685 548

Commercial Mixed-Use

200-140-19 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 5.45 136 68 Yosemite Ave (inventoried 50% capacity); Truck storage yard;

-




Manteca 2015


Desig. Code

Zoning

GPLU Min.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre)

GPLU Max.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre)

acres



Notes Very Low-

Income

Low- Income

Mod- Income

Very Low-

Income

Low- Income

Mod- Income


Yosemite Ave (inventoried 50% capacity); underutilized - mostly

vacant site, dilapidated 1-story commercial building; near Kaiser

Medical center


Yosemite Ave (inventoried 50% capacity); Mostly vacant; existing

single-family homes; Yosemite Ave. near Kaiser Medical center

204-100-21 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 2.78 24 17 Mostly vacant; existing single-family home; Lathrop Rd.

204-100-22 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 2.89 25 18 Mostly vacant; existing single-family home

204-100-23 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 5.78 51 36 Mostly vacant; existing single-family home

204-100-25 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 2.26 20 14 Mostly vacant; existing single-family home; Union St.


Mostly vacant; existing single-family home; Corner of Lathrop Rd.

and Union St.


Main St (inventoried 50% capacity); underutilized - dilapidated

commercial building; Main Street


Commercial office building with reuse potential; corner of

Yosemite Ave and Main St.

221-020-28 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 1.14 10 0 Not likely to develop as residential; interest in building depot

project

222-020-09, -10, -11, -12, -

13, -14, -15, -16, -17, -18, -

19; 222-100-01, -02, -04, -05,

-06 (16 parcels) Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 23.67 592 148

Airport Way (inventoried 25% capacity); 10 parcels along Airport

Way with existing single-family homes; Airport Way


Yosemite Ave (inventoried 50% capacity); underutilized - barn on

site assessed at $44105, land value $242,579


Yosemite Ave (inventoried 25% capacity because of existing

uses); mostly vacant parcel between 2 vacant parcels; existing uses

include single-family home and restaurant; Yosemite Ave near

Fishback Rd.

223-020-28 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 0.64 16 8 Main St (inventoried 50% capacity); Small, downtown infill parcel

223-101-10, -11, -12 (3

parcels) Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 0.43 11 5 Main St (inventoried 50% capacity); Small, downtown infill

parcels used as parking lot

228-06-024 Commercial Mixed Use CMU MP 15.1 25 4.69 117 29 Austin Road Master Plan





-





Manteca 2015


Desig. Code

Zoning

GPLU Min.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre)

GPLU Max.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre)

acres



Notes Very Low-

Income

Low- Income

Mod- Income

Very Low-

Income

Low- Income

Mod- Income




223-430-06 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 1 25 13 Yosemite Ave (inventoried 50% capacity); mostly vacant;

223-430-09, 223-410-05 (2

parcels) Commercial Mixed Use CMU CMU 15.1 25 1.23 31 15

Yosemite Ave (inventoried 50% capacity); existing single-family

home on large lot

Subtotal 137.91 3,123 956

TOTAL RESIDENTIAL LU DESIGNATIONS/ZONING 54.8 230 0 685 157 0 548

TOTAL COMMERCIAL MIXED USE LU DESIGNATIONS/ZONING 137.91 3,123 0 0 956 0 0

GRAND TOTAL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS/ ZONING 192.71 3,353 0 685 1,113 0 548

-



Table A-3 Underutilized Residential and Mixed Use Sites with Long-Term Development Potential

Manteca, 2015

Long-Term Infill Development/Redevelopment Potential (not inventoried)

APN # GP LU Designation

GP LU

Desig. Code Zoning

GPLU Min.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre)

GPLU Max.

Allowable Density

(DU/acre)

GIS

acres


Inventoried Affordable Units

(Res LU = 80% capacity, CMU LU = 25% capacity)

Notes

Very Low-

Income Low-

Income Mod-

Income

Very Low-

Income Low-

Income Mod-

Income

216-350-10 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CC 15.1 25 1.42 36 Main Street (could develop as 100% residential);

mostly vacant; existing single-family home

217-070-15 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CC 15.1 25 0.77 19 Main Street (could develop as 100% residential)

217-250-39 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CC 15.1 25 1.93 48 Main Street (could develop as 100% residential);

Industrial building

217-260-14 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CC 15.1 25 0.82 21

Main Street (could develop as 100% residential); car

sales lot; could be merged with parcel APN 207-26-

017


Main Street (could develop as 100% residential);

vacant commercial building and RV storage; could be

merged with parcel APN 207-26-014

217-280-03, -04 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CC 15.1 25 2.78 18 site of Manteca Tire (2 parcels)

221-020-27 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CC 15.1 25 1.31 9 site of Kelly Moore Paint Company; corner of S. Main

and Moffat Blvd.


Yosemite Ave (could develop as 100% residential);

infill potential; Bank of America on part of site;

remaining parking lot could be infill site (could be

100% residential); corner of Yosemite Ave and Main

St.


underutilized - 1/2 of parcel is vacant; parcel could be

merged with APN 223-02-024, -026, and -029; Grant

Ave near Frances St.

223-080-57 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CC 15.1 25 0.603 15 Main Street (could develop as 100% residential)

223-110-22 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CC 15.1 25 1.34 34 0


Kragen Auto Parts and large parking lot' on Yosemite

Ave (could be developed as 100% residential);

Yosemite Ave at Garfield Ave

223-240-07 Commercial Mixed Use CMU CC 15.1 25 2.42 61 0


existing use: Antique Ave (commercial building);

Yosemite Ave at Powers Ave.

-



Appendix B: Public Participation

Community/Stakeholder Workshop Summary

Workshop (April 8, 2015)

Workshop Overview

On April 8, 2015, the City of Manteca held a community workshop as part of its 2015-2023 Housing

Element Update. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an overview of the Housing Element

Update process and solicit input from the public and stakeholders on housing issues prior to preparing the

Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element. Following a presentation that described key issues related to

Manteca’s housing needs; attendeeds participated in a roundtable discussion about Manteca’s community

assets, major housing issues, and possible soluations to the identified issues. The City publicized the

meeting through email and flyer posting, as well as a Public Notice. The following provides a summary of

the discussion.

Community Assets

Parks/Recreation Facilities

Central Valley Housing

Family and Women’s/Children Shelters

Senior Housing

Diverse Housing Types

Schools and After school programs (e.g., Summer food program

Community spirit and Generous Population

Church programs

Service clubs

Boys and Girls club

Hospitals

Affordable senior projects

Bike path

Issues

City permit fees are too high and processing times are too long.

There is a low supply/inventory of rental housing and apartments, which has caused high rental

prices. Multifamily construction costs, financing, land costs are high and is a limit on the

production of rental housing.

There is a limited market for condominiums and limited support for HOAs.

The local housing market demand is for single family dwellings with a yard. This demand is

coming from Bay Area commuters. There is a lot of local demand for 200K-250k price point, but

most properties are selling for well over that amount.

The City is considering requirements for point of sale energy efficiency and water conservation

improvements, but this will raise costs of housing.

-



Low inventory of rental housing is driving up prices and creating more homeless. Homeless

counts are under-reported and there are high numbers of homeless individuals with disabilities.

Shelters are at capacity with high waiting lists. There is a need for more homeless shelters,

including women- and men-only facilities. There is also a need for a homeless resource center to

generate funding and assist homeless.

There is a need more doctors in Manteca, but the city needs higher end housing that is attractive

to doctors.

The Section 8 housing wait list in San Joaquin County is extremely high.

Lack of affordable senior housing and senior housing that is located near services.

Need to address the local workforce housing issue. Housing is not affordable to many individuals

who work in Manteca.

Out of town investors/landlords are not maintaining their properties.

There will be major impacts to schools with the amount of growth projected in the RHNA. Local

schools are at capacity and new regulations for lower teacher-student ratios will require additional

facilities. However, the School District does not have funding to expand.

Potential Solutions

Incentivize the development of housing. Lower fees or defer fees and provider faster application

and permit processing.

Encourage construction practices that lower housing maintenance/utility costs to improve

affordability (e.g., Build it green, passive site design)

Inclusionary housing. [Note: there was a lot of discussion and disagreement about the use of

inclusionary housing to address affordability challenges in Manteca.]

Planning mixed-use and multi-family around transit center and downtown. Improve

Neighborhood-walkability to get to services.

Create more jobs that pay a living wage to address homeless and affordability issues. Redevelop

the underutilized industrial park to create more jobs near downtown. Expanding internet access to

the industrial park to create more jobs.

Identify and pursue grants for affordable housing. Actively encourage affordable housing builders

to come to Manteca. Partner with builders to pursue grants and acquire land.

Create a program for first time homebuyer down payment assistance.

Distribute the affordable housing stock throughout town to avoid concentrations of affordable

housing.

Improve code enforcement to maintain and improve housing stock, especially for rentals that are

owned by out of town landlords and apartments.

Pursue partnerships with faith-based organizations that serve Manteca (e.g., homeless

shelters/services), so they can access grants.

Participants

B. Cantu, Resident

D. Filios, Manteca Development Group

J. Breitenbucher, Manteca Unified School District

Joan N., Resident

John B., BIA Greater Valley

L. Smith, Resident

-



Lin Silverman, Resident

Marissa Peralta, Resident

Mark Meissner, City of Manteca

Michelle Whitaker, HOPE Ministries

Peggy W., San Joaquin Fair Housing Association

Singh Sells, Resident

Steven Parnson, Resident

Toni (Last name unknown), Raymus Homes

Trevor Smith, Richland Communities

Planning Commission Study Session (August 25, 2015)

On August 25, 2015, the City of Manteca held a Planning Commission study session as part of its 2015-

2023 Housing Element Update. The purpose of the study session was to provide an overview of the

Housing Element Update process and solicit input from the Commission and public on the Public Review

Draft Housing Element prior to an upcoming City Council study session and submitting the Element to

the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Following a presentation by the

City’s Housing Element Update Consultant that described key issues related to Manteca’s housing needs;

Commissioners and meeting attendees discussed Manteca’s major housing issues and possible solutions

to the identified issues. The following provides a summary of the discussion.

Concentration of Future Affordable Housing. Commissioner concern that the sites inventory indicates

that much of the land identified for accommodating affordable housing (i.e., land zoned for higher

densities) is concentrated along Austin Road.

Down-zoning. Commissioner concern that the City is rezoning multifamily zoned land to R1.

Regional Plans. Commissioner suggestion to include or revise policies and/or programs to support

implementation of the SJCOG RTP/SCS and its greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Complete Neighborhoods. Commissioner suggestion to include or revise policies and/or programs to

further complete neighborhoods that are served by inter-city transit.

Alternative Energy. Commissioner suggestion to include or revise policies and/or programs to address

alternative energy sources/uses for homes.

Inclusionary Housing. Commissioner suggestion to include or revise policies and/or programs to require

a certain number of housing units in new, market rate developments to be deed restricted affordable to

lower-income groups or allow payment of an in-lieu fee that would be used to fund affordable housing

projects (i.e., adopt an Inclusionary Ordinance).

There was disagreement among the Commissioners as to the effectiveness of this type of

program. Members of the public commented that an inclusionary ordinance/program is not

effective in addressing affordable housing needs because it burdens other, market rate

homeowners with additional housing costs. Members of the public also indicated that

-



inclusionary ordinances/programs are currently being appealed to the Supreme Court (California

BIA vs. City of San Jose) and could be determined to be unconstitutional.

Support, Incentives, and Staffing. Commissioner suggestion to include or revise policies and/or

programs to provide or create additional incentives and funding for the production of affordable housing.

Commissioners suggested that the City allocate resources toward additional staff to pursue grants and

work with developers to identify incentives for the production of affordable housing.

Emergency Shelters. Commissioner suggestion to include or revise policies and/or programs that directs

the City sponsor a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop emergency shelters to address the City’s

homeless population needs.

Ongoing Housing Issues. Commissioner suggestion that the Planning Commission and City staff

continue to work on the issues identified above through the Housing Element Update process and

following adoption of the Housing Element.

City Efforts. Public comments that the data presented in the Housing Element is a positive indication of

the City’s efforts to address its housing needs, including: high homeownership rates, low homeless

population, capacity to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and history of building

affordable housing projects.

-



Newspaper Article: Manteca Bulletin (August 28, 2015)

“Housing prices soar as Manteca incomes flattens"

Hou ing pric oar a lanteca income flatten

J 110R Clunpbdl J mpbcll am ntccabullrtm . m 2 9-2-19- . ~

u st:26.2015

The population of an eca is expected to top the 100,000 mark within the next decade.

All of hose new people are going o need a place to Hve. And no all of them can a ord the Single- amily homes that are getting more expensive wh ile wages have hit a plateau - pu ng the dream of homeownership squarely Into he hands of those who have the disposable Income.

According a report prepared by the consulting rm Mintier Harnish nearly half of all Manteca residents e ceed he suggested 1ncome-to -houslng ra o of 30 percent.

When coupled with the median home pnce In Manteca exceeding the 300,000 mark, a family would need to ma e nearly $72,000-a-year In order o comfortably be able o make mortgage payments.

The anteca Planning Commission heard fTom the consulting firm on Tuesday when conSiderlng the mandated upda e to he city's e lstJng General Plan o deal specifically Yith housmg - chiefly low-income options for those who can't afford the tra.dibonal single family dwelling.

The matter nex goes before the Manteca City Coundl for onnal considera on. Approval of the dra documen will then be forwarded on to the California Departmen o Housing and Community Development for a Slgn-o f.

It's the only aspect of the a ty's general plan - which is considered by planners to be a "blueprint for growth" - that needs o be approved by an outside agency.

Despite the sweeping mpllcatlons of he text, the matter generated llt e d1scuss1on amongst the handful o people who attended Tuesday's In ormationar session.

One developer, 6JII Allos, felt the need to se the record straight when a comment was made by a commissioner that there had only been 40 or so affordable housing units built wi hm the last five years. Fillos - one of the partners of A F Developmen and an ac ve developer 1n other ventures - poin ed out tha an

-



8/26/2015

entire apartment complex designed for low-income families was built with the last year and provides nearly 150 units that go to those who qualify.

According to Mintier Harnish, Manteca's population is expected to grow 36 percent within the next 8 years - the length of time that the housing element portion of the general plan is active - to top out at more than 103,000 residents by 2023.

Manteca as a whole, according to statistics provided in the report, has considerably more single family homes than the state average - 77 percent of all housing units in Manteca fit into that category while California as a whole drags behind at only 58 percent.

As a result, the city is behind the state average in multi-family residential options with 18 percent of the total compared to the 31 percent that serves as the statewide average. And of homes that qualify as low-income, 49. 9 percent of those are run by single mothers. Nearly 20 percent of all homes in Manteca house 5 or more people compared to the statewide average of 16.4 percent, and of the 25,000 farm workers in San Joaquin County, no migrant residential housing exists within the city limits.

But Manteca isn't alone in trying to put language into place to govern the construction of affordable housing for families who need assistance.

The San Joaquin Council of Governments has made the determination that 40,360 housing units are needed within the next 8-year period, and that means that Manteca is on the hook for 4,401 of those.

Lathrop is excepted to plan for 5,156 housing units during the same time period.

Commissioner Roberto Alaniz pointed out that while the median cost for a singlefamily home in Manteca has risen sharply in recent years, individual earnings have not kept up to that rate . The consultant pointed out that the average developer spends $209,000 to actually construct the dwelling while paying $66,000 for the property that it sits on.

The housing element will be before the Manteca City Council next month and is ontrack to be sent for state consideration by the end of December - the legal cutoff date for submission.

http://www. mantecabul letin. com/section/1/article/ 127435/

httpJ/www.mantecabulleti n.com/sectial/1/article/127435/

-212



Other Public Comments:

Meissner, Mark

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Good Morning Mark and Frederic,

[email protected] Sunday, August 30, 2015 3:36 PM

Meissner, Mark; Clark, Frederic

Housing element.

Follow up Flagged

On Tuesday August 25 the housing element 2015-2023, was presented as a public hearing in front of the Planning

Commission. Following are my comments to the public hearing as a planning commissioner and citizen.

Manteca's Housing Goals add:

1-Diverse. balance and flexible mix of land uses support a strong economy complete neighborhoods. transit use and

community health.

2-Achieve State and regional air quality and green house gas reduction on targets to achieve community sustainability.

I Affordable Housing add under policy:

Policy H-P-15: lnclusionary zoning requiring developers to set aside a certain percentage of newly developed housing

units at below market rates for lower income households. The obligation could also be met by constructing affordable

units off-site or by paying an in-lieu fee. used to construct or maintain existing affordable housing units. In exchange for

building affordable housing. developers receive regulatory flexibility such as expedited permitting. reduced permit fees.

increased allowable densities. reduced parking requirements. relaxed development standards (i.e .• reduced setbacks,

narrower street widths. etc). Cities may also provide one or more financial incentives or 'cost offsets' to developers such

as below-market rate construction loans. or tax-exempt mortgage financing for low- and moderate-income homebuyers.

Policy H-P-31 add sustainable, .... between livable sustainable neighborhoods.

Policy H-1-15 add Homeless between ... existing homeless, emergency shelters and ...

Policy H-P-54 ... add alternative between ... Use of energy and alternative energy

Add New Policy H-P-60: The City shall support the use of solar in new and existing developments. The City shall support

putting solar on existing buildings including existing City's buildings.

I hope these comments will be included in the overall comments and will be forwarded to the City Council.

Thank you Leonard

-



-

August 27, 2015

City of Manteca City Council 1001 W. Center Street Manteca, CA 95337

Dear Mayor and Council Members:

As a member of your Planning Commission for the past 4+ years , I have thoroughly enjoyed contributing to city planning and development efforts and I thank you for this opportunity.

Today, I am writing to you as an individual , and not on behalf of the Planning Commission as a whole, on the subject of the City's 2015-2023 Draft Housing Element Update. On August 25, 2015, the Planning Commission held a workshop to consider this document. After much discussion and debate , the Commission approved a motion to forward the document and a summary of the Planning Commission discussion for your consideration in an upcoming City Council workshop.

Please note that the Planning Commission has committed to continue to discuss related affordable housing development issues and possible amendments to the Housing Element Update as the document moves through review and final approval process. (approximately three months) .

I would like to share my concerns and recommendations for this Plan directly with you. Clearly, there are differing opinions and perspectives amongst the Planning Commissioners and the community at large regarding the current and future availability of affordable housing in Manteca, the severity of need , and the adequacy of this Plan in addressing the need.

The Housing Element Update includes a great deal of data that quantifies the need for additional affordable housing within the next eight (8) years . It also includes income and housing cost data that illustrates that the current trend of housing costs continuing to grow, while family incomes remain relatively flat. Clearly, all income levels are affected , but low-income families will be most severely impacted by these trends over time.

The Housing Element supporting data identifies the types of occupations that are generally included in the "extremely or very low-income groups", such as Preschool Teachers, Laborers, Farm Workers , Security Guards, Waiters and Waitresses, and Cashiers. I am confident that the City values residents in these occupations and will ensure that there is adequate housing available for them at an affordable cost. (rentals and when practical , home purchase).

While the City has and continues to identify through the General Plan sufficient zoned land to accommodate affordable housing development, the recent loss of Redevelopment funds has greatly reduced the financial resources available to



actually "make it happen". The Draft Housing Element Update now being considered is large on policies that "support, promote , and encourage" the development of affordable housing , but falls short on policies and implementation programs that will actually produce more affordable units or deal with housing affordability, mainly because of the loss of Redevelopment funds.

The loss of Redevelopment Funds eliminated at least one City position that was dedicated to Housing. You may note that many of the City's Policies and Programs included in the Housing Element Update are largely dependent upon existing City (Community Development) staff to do the required work. Much of this work requires a level of expertise and focus that , to my knowledge, no longer exists within the City staffing . In addition , there are some services and programs included in the Housing Element (e.g. , H-I-17 and H-I-18; Fair Housing) that rely primarily upon County Housing Authority staff.

In my view, one of the greatest obstacles to achieving the goals of the Housing Element Update is the lack of dedicated City staff and resources to pursue the development of affordable housing and to coordinate with the County Housing Authority.

I believe that additional staff time and contract expertise is needed to :

• Write and apply for any housing grant funds , • Have more collaborative discussions with builders and developers to develop

mutually acceptable approaches and solutions, • Identify measures to preserve existing affordable housing , and • Work with the community to identify housing needs and resources.

It is rare to find a single person that can do all of these functions. I would suggest that the City consider a combination of a part-time Housing Specialist and a parttime or contract Grant Writer.

I urge your Council to consider the need for a more proactive approach to maintain and develop affordable housing for our residents, including the need for additional staff and resources to support the effort.

Thank you for your consideration .

Sincerely,

Roberto Alaniz , Planning Commissioner

cc: Planning Commissioners Karen McLaughlin, City Manager Frederic Clark, Community Development Director Mark Meissner, Planning Manager

-



Appendix C: Glossary

Acre: a unit of land measure equal to 43,650 square feet.

Acreage: Net: The portion of a site exclusive of existing or planned public or private road rights-of-way.

Affordability Covenant: A property title agreement which places resale or rental restrictions on a

housing unit.

Affordable Housing: Under State and federal statutes, housing which costs no more than 30 percent of

gross household income. Housing costs include rent or mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, insurance,

homeowner association fees, and other related costs.

Affordable Units: Units for which households do not pay more than 30 percent of income for payment of

rent (including monthly allowance for utilities) or monthly mortgage and related expenses. Since above

moderate-income households do not generally have problems in locating affordable units, affordable units

are often defined as those that low- to moderate-income households can afford.

Annexation: The incorporation of land area into the jurisdiction of an existing city with a resulting

change in the boundaries of that city.

Assisted Housing: Housing that has been subsidized by federal, state, or local housing programs.

Assisted Housing Developments: Multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance

under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of §65863.10, state and local multifamily revenue bond

programs, local redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development Block Grant Program, or

local in-lieu fees. The term also includes multi-family rental units that were developed pursuant to a local

inclusionary housing program or used to a quality for a density bonus pursuant to §65915.

At-Risk Housing: Multi-family rental housing that is at risk of losing its status as housing affordable for

low and moderate income tenants due to the expiration of federal, state or local agreements.

Below-Market-Rate (BMR): Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to low- or

moderate- income households for an amount less than the fair-market value of the unit. Both the State of

California and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development set standards for determining

which households qualify as "low income" or "moderate income." The financing of housing at less than

prevailing interest rates.

California Department of Housing and Community Development - HCD: The State Department

responsible for administering State-sponsored housing programs and for reviewing housing elements to

determine compliance with State housing law.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A State law requiring State and local agencies to

regulate activities with consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the

potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be

prepared and certified as to its adequacy before taking action on the proposed project.

-



California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA): A State agency, established by the Housing and Home

Finance Act of 1975, which is authorized to sell revenue bonds and generate funds for the development,

rehabilitation, and conservation of low- and moderate-income housing.

Census: The official United States decennial enumeration of the population conducted by the federal

government.

City: City with a capital "C" generally refers to City of Manteca government or administration. City with

a lower case "c" generally refers to the geographical area of the city.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): A grant program administered by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitlement communities,

and by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non-entitled

jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community

development, including public facilities and economic development.

Compatible: Capable of existing together without conflict or ill effects.

Condominium: A building or group of buildings in which units are owned individually, but the structure,

common areas and facilities are owned by all owners on a proportional, undivided basis.

Consistent: Free from variation or contradiction. Programs in the General Plan are to be consistent, not

contradictory or preferential. State law requires consistency between a general plan and implementation

measures such as the zoning ordinance.

Contract Rent: The monthly rent agreed to, or contracted for regardless of any furnishings, utilities, or

services that may be included.

Dedication, In lieu of: Cash payments that may be required of an owner or developer as a substitute for

a dedication of land, usually calculated in dollars per lot, and referred to as in lieu fees or in lieu

contributions.

Density: The number of dwelling units per unit of land. Density usually is expressed ―per acre,‖ e.g., a

development with 100 units located on 20 acres has density of 5.0 units per acre.

Density, Residential: The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. Densities

specified in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or per net developable acre.

Density Bonus: The allocation of development rights that allows a parcel to accommodate additional

square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. Under

Government Code Section 65915, a housing development that provides 20 percent of its units for lower

income households, or ten percent of its units for very low-income households, or 50 percent of its units

for seniors, is entitled to a density bonus and other concessions.

Developable Land: Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of

hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas.

-



Development Impact Fees: A fee or charge imposed on developers to pay for a jurisdiction’s costs of

providing services to new development.

Development Right: The right granted to a land owner or other authorized party to improve a property.

Such right is usually expressed in terms of a use and intensity allowed under existing zoning regulation.

For example, a development right may specify the maximum number of residential dwelling units

permitted per acre of land.

Dwelling, Multi-family: A building containing two or more dwelling units for the use of individual

households; an apartment or condominium building is an example of this dwelling unit type.

Dwelling, Single-family Attached: A one-family dwelling attached to one or more other one-family

dwellings by a common vertical wall. Row houses and town homes are examples of this dwelling unit

type.

Dwelling, Single-family Detached: A dwelling, not attached to any other dwelling, which is designed for

and occupied by not more than one family and surrounded by open space or yards.

Dwelling Unit: A room or group of rooms (including sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation facilities,

but not more than one kitchen), that constitutes an independent housekeeping unit, occupied or intended

for occupancy by one household on a long-term basis.

Elderly Household: As defined by HUD, elderly households are one- or two- member (family or non-

family) households in which the head or spouse is age 62 or older.

Element: A division or chapter of the General Plan.

Emergency Shelter: An emergency shelter is housing with minimal supportive services for homeless

persons. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.

Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG): A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) provided on a formula basis to large entitlement jurisdictions.

Encourage: To stimulate or foster a particular condition through direct or indirect action by the private

sector or government agencies.

Enhance: To improve existing conditions by increasing the quantity or quality of beneficial uses or

features.

Environmental Impact Report (EIR): A report that assesses all the environmental characteristics of an

area and determines what effects or impacts will result if the area is altered or disturbed by a proposed

action.

Fair Market Rent: The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States Department of

Housing and Urban Development for purposes of administering the Section 8 Existing Housing Program.

Family: (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption [U.S. Bureau of the Census]. (2)

An individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single-family housekeeping

-



unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a

hotel, lodging house or institution of any kind [California].

Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,

taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.

First-Time Home Buyer: Defined by HUD as an individual or family who has not owned a home during

the three-year period preceding the HUD-assisted purchase of a home. Jurisdictions may adopt local

definitions for first-time home buyer programs which differ from non-federally funded programs.

General Plan: The General Plan is a legal document, adopted by the legislative body of a City or County,

setting forth policies regarding long-term development. California law requires the preparation of seven

elements or chapters in the General Plan: Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space,

Noise, and Safety. Additional elements are permitted, such as Economic Development, Urban Design and

similar local concerns.

Goal: The ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable.

Green Building: Any building that is sited, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained for the

health and well-being of the occupants, while minimizing impact on the environment.

Gross Rent: Contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities (water, electricity, gas) and

fuels (oil, kerosene, wood, etc.) To the extent that these are paid for by the renter (or paid for by a

relative, welfare agency, or friend) in addition to the rent.

Group Quarters: A facility which houses groups of unrelated persons not living in households (U.S.

Census definition). Examples of group quarters include institutions, dormitories, shelters, military

quarters, assisted living facilities and other quarters, including single-room occupancy (SRO) housing,

where 10 or more unrelated individuals are housed.

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA): The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires larger lending

institutions making home mortgage loans to publicly disclose the location and disposition of home

purchase, refinance and improvement loans. Institutions subject to HMDA must also disclose the gender,

race, and income of loan applicants.

HOME Program: The HOME Investment Partnership Act, Title II of the National Affordable Housing

Act of 1990. HOME is a Federal program administered by HUD which provides formula grants to States

and localities to fund activities that build, buy, and/or rehabilitate affordable housing for rent or home

ownership or provide direct rental assistance to low-income people.

Homeless: Unsheltered homeless are families and individuals whose primary nighttime residence is a

public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for

human beings (e.g., the street, sidewalks, cars, vacant and abandoned buildings). Sheltered homeless are

families and persons whose primary nighttime residence is a supervised publicly or privately operated

shelter (e.g., emergency, transitional, battered women, and homeless youth shelters; and commercial

hotels used to house the homeless).

-



Household: All those persons—related or unrelated—who occupy a single housing unit.

Household Income: The total income of all the persons living in a household. A household is usually

described as very low income, low income, moderate income, and upper income based upon household

size, and income, relative to the regional median income.

Households, Number of: The count of all year-round housing units occupied by one or more persons.

The concept of household is important because the formation of new households generates the demand

for housing. Each new household formed creates the need for one additional housing unit or requires that

one existing housing unit be shared by two households. Thus, household formation can continue to take

place even without an increase in population, thereby increasing the demand for housing.

Housing and Community Development, Department of (HCD): The State agency that has principal

responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the needs of low- and

moderate-income households.

Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD): A cabinet-level department of the

federal government that administers housing and community development programs.

Housing Authority, Local (LHA): Local housing agency established in State law, subject to local

activation and operation. Originally intended to manage certain federal subsidies, but vested with broad

powers to develop and manage other forms of affordable housing.

Housing Problems: Defined by HUD as a household which: (1) occupies a unit with physical defects

(lacks complete kitchen or bathroom); (2) meets the definition of overcrowded; or (3) spends more than

30% of income on housing cost.

Housing Subsidy: Housing subsidies refer to government assistance aimed at reducing housing sales or

rent prices to more affordable levels. Two general types of housing subsidy exist. Where a housing

subsidy is linked to a particular house or apartment, housing subsidy is ―project‖ or ―unit‖ based. In

Section 8 rental assistance programs the subsidy is linked to the family and assistance provided to any

number of families accepted by willing private landlords. This type of subsidy is said to be ―tenant

based.‖

Housing Unit: The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A housing unit may be

a single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a

cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law. A housing unit has, at

least, cooking facilities, a bathroom, and a place to sleep. It also is a dwelling that cannot be moved

without substantial damage or unreasonable cost.

Impact Fee: A fee, also called a development fee, levied on the developer of a project by a city, county,

or other public agency as compensation for otherwise-unmitigated impacts the project will produce.

Inclusionary Zoning: Provisions established by a public agency to require that a specific percentage of

housing units in a project or development remain affordable to very low-, and low-, or moderate income

households for a specified period.

-



Implementation Program: An action, procedures, program, or technique that carries out general plan

policy. Implementation programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and a

time frame for its accomplishment.

Income Category: Four categories are used to classify a household according to income based on the

median income for the county. Under state housing statutes, these categories are defined as follows: Very

Low (0-50% of county median); Low (50-80% of county median); Moderate (80-120% of county

median); and Upper (over 120% of county median).

Infill Development: Development of vacant land (usually individual lots or left-over properties) within

areas that are already largely developed.

Jobs/Housing Balance; Jobs/Housing Ratio: The availability of affordable housing for employees. The

jobs/housing ratio divides the number of jobs in an area by the number of employed residents. A ratio of

1.0 indicates a balance. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates a net in-commute; less than 1.0 indicates a net

out-commute.

Large Household: A household with five or more members.

Lease: A contractual agreement by which an owner of real property (the lessor) gives the right of

possession to another (a lessee) for a specified period of time (term) and for a specified consideration

(rent).

Low-income Housing Tax Credits: Tax reductions provided by the federal and State governments for

investors in housing for low-income households.

Manufactured Housing: Housing that is constructed of manufactured components, assembled partly at

the site rather than totally at the site. Also referred to as modular housing.

Market-Rate Housing: Housing which is available on the open market without any subsidy. The price

for housing is determined by the market forces of supply and demand and varies by location.

Mean: The average of a range of numbers.

Median: The mid-point in a range of numbers.

Median Income: The annual income for each household size within a region which is defined annually

by HUD. Half of the households in the region have incomes above the median and half have incomes

below the median.

Mitigate: To ameliorate, alleviate, or avoid to the extent reasonably feasible.

Mixed-use: Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential,

are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant

functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. A "single site" may include contiguous

properties.

-



Mobile Home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, built on a permanent chassis and

designed for use as a single-family dwelling unit and which (1) has a minimum of 400 square feet of

living space; (2) has a minimum width in excess of 102 inches; (3) is connected to all available permanent

utilities; and (4) is tied down (a) to a permanent foundation on a lot either owned or leased by the

homeowner or (b) is set on piers, with wheels removed and skirted, in a mobile home park.

Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB): A state, county or city program providing financing for the

development of housing through the sale of tax-exempt bonds.

Multi-family Dwelling Unit: A building or portion thereof designed for or occupied by two or more

families living independently of each other, including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, apartments, and

condominiums.

Overcrowding: Households or occupied housing units with 1.01 or more persons per room.

Parcel: A lot in single ownership or under single control, usually considered a unit for purposes of

development.

Physical Defects: A housing unit lacking complete kitchen or bathroom facilities (U.S. Census

definition). Jurisdictions may expand the Census definition in defining units with physical defects.

Poverty Level: As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are classified as being

above or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that provides a range of income cutoffs or

"poverty thresholds" varying by size of family, number of children, and age of householder. The income

cutoffs are updated each year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.

Project-Based Rental Assistance: Rental assistance provided for a project, not for a specific tenant. A

tenant receiving project-based rental assistance gives up the right to that assistance upon moving from the

project.

Public Housing: A project-based low-rent housing program operated by independent local public

housing authorities. A low-income family applies to the local public housing authority in the area in

which they want to live.

Quantified Objective: The housing element must include quantified objectives which specify the

maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved by income level

within a five- year time frame, based on the needs, resources, and constraints identified in the housing

element (§65583 (b)). The number of units that can be conserved should include a subtotal for the

number of existing assisted units subject to conversion to non-low-income households. Whenever

possible, objectives should be set for each particular housing program, establishing a numerical target for

the effective period of the program. Ideally, the sum of the quantified objectives will be equal to the

identified housing needs. However, identified needs may exceed available resources and limitations

imposed by other requirements of state planning law. Where this is the case, the quantified objectives

need not equal the identified housing needs, but should establish the maximum number of units that can

be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved (including existing subsidized units subject to conversion

which can be preserved for lower- income use), given the constraints.

-



Redevelop: To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or

both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.

Redevelopment Agency: California Community Redevelopment Law provided authority to establish a

Redevelopment Agency with the scope and financing mechanisms necessary to remedy blight and

provide stimulus to eliminate deteriorated conditions. The law provided for the planning, development,

redesign, clearance, reconstruction, or rehabilitation, or any combination of these, and the provision of

public and private improvements as may be appropriate or necessary in the interest of the general welfare

by the Agency. Redevelopment law required an Agency to set aside 20 percent of all tax increment

dollars generated from each redevelopment project area for increasing and improving the community’s

supply of affordable housing. However in 2012 the State approved the dissolution of the state’s

Redevelopment Agencies. As a result of eliminating these agencies, property tax revenues are currently

(2015) being used to pay required payments on existing bonds, other obligations, and pass-through

payments to local governments.

Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP): The Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) is based on State of

California projections of population growth and housing unit demand and assigns a share of the region’s

future housing need to each jurisdiction in California. These housing need numbers serve as the basis for

the update of the Housing Element in each California city and county.

Regional Housing Needs Share: A quantification by a COG or by HCD of existing and projected

housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region.

Rehabilitation: The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of substandard housing.

Residential, Multiple Family: Usually three or more dwelling units on a single site, which may be in the

same or separate buildings.

Residential, Single-family: A single dwelling unit on a building site.

Rezoning: An amendment to the map and/or text of a zoning ordinance to effect a change in the nature,

density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.

Second Unit: A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in addition to, the

primary residential unit on a single lot. "Granny Flat" is one type of second unit intended for the elderly.

Section 8 Rental Assistance Program: A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is one of the main

sources of federal housing assistance for low-income households. The program operates by providing

"housing assistance payments" to owners, developers, and public housing agencies to make up the

difference between the "Fair Market Rent" of a unit (set by HUD) and the household's contribution

toward the rent, which is calculated at 30 percent of the household's adjusted gross monthly income

(GMI). Section 8 includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate

housing rehabilitation.

Seniors: Persons age 65 and older.

-



Service Needs: The particular services required by special populations, typically including needs such as

transportation, personal care, housekeeping, counseling, meals, case management, personal emergency

response, and other services preventing premature institutionalization and assisting individuals to

continue living independently.

Shall: That which is obligatory or necessary.

Should: Signifies a directive to be honored if at all feasible.

Site: A parcel of land used or intended for one use or a group of uses and having frontage on a public or

an approved private street. A lot.

Small Household: Pursuant to HUD definition, a small household consists of two to four non-elderly

persons.

Special Needs Groups: Those segments of the population which have a more difficult time finding

decent affordable housing due to special circumstances. Under California Housing Element statutes, these

special needs groups consist of the elderly, handicapped, large families, female-headed households,

farmworkers and the homeless. A jurisdiction may also choose to consider additional special needs

groups in the Housing Element, such as students, military households, other groups present in their

community.

Subdivision: The division of a tract of land into defined lots, either improved or unimproved, which can

be separately conveyed by sale or lease, and which can be altered or developed.

Subdivision Map Act: Section 66410 et seq. of the California Government Code, this act vests in local

legislative bodies the regulation and control of the design and improvement of subdivisions, including the

requirement for tentative and final maps.

Subsidize: To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting of terms or favors that reduce the

need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms of mortgage interest deductions or

tax credits from federal and/or state income taxes, sale or lease at less than market value of land to be

used for the construction of housing, payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like.

Substandard Housing: Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do not provide

safe and sanitary housing.

Substandard, Suitable for Rehabilitation: Substandard units which are structurally sound and where

the cost of rehabilitation is economically warranted.

Substandard, Needs Replacement: Substandard units which are structurally unsound and for which the

cost of rehabilitation is considered infeasible, such as instances where the majority of a unit has been

damaged by fire.

-



Supportive Housing: Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population,

and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assit the supportive housing resident in retaining the

housing, improving her or his health status, and maximizing her or his ability to live, and when possible,

work in the community.

Supportive Services: Services provided to residents of supportive housing for the purpose of facilitating

the independence of residents. Some examples are case management, medical or psychological

counseling and supervision, child care, transportation, and job training.

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: A form of rental assistance in which the assisted tenant may move

from a dwelling unit with a right to continued assistance. The assistance is provided for the tenant, not for

the project.

Transient Occupancy Buildings: Buildings that have an occupancy of 30 days or fewer, such as

boarding houses, hospices, hostels, and emergency shelters.

Transit Occupancy Tax: A tax imposed by a jurisdiction upon travelers to the area, collected by hotel,

bed and breakfast, and condominium operators.

Transitional Housing: Transitional housing are buildings configured as rental housing developments,

but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of

the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which

shall be no less than six months.

Universal Design: The creation of products and environments meant to be usable by all people, to the

greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialization.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): The cabinet level department of the

federal government responsible for housing, housing assistance, and urban development at the national

level. Housing programs administered through HUD include Community Development Block Grant

(CDBG), HOME and Section 8, among others.

Vacant: Lands or buildings that are not actively used for any purpose.

Zoning: The division of a city or county by legislative regulations into areas, or zones, which specify

allowable uses for real property and size restrictions for buildings within these areas; a program that

implements policies of the General Plan.

-

2015-2023 Housing Element - California Department of ... California law the housing element must...

Documents

Transcript of 2015-2023 Housing Element - California Department of ... California law the housing element must...